Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Monday 5 January 2026, 4:00pm

Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Monday, 5th January 2026 at 4:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

2 Substitute Members

Share this agenda point

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Tony Slater
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield

4 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes Public Pack, 01/12/2025 Overview and Scrutiny Committee

5 Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Share this agenda point

Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Gina Blomefield

6 Chair's Announcements

Share this agenda point

7 Public Questions

Share this agenda point

9 Report back on recommendations

Share this agenda point

10 Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield

11 Service Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 2

Share this agenda point

Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Officer
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Mike Evemy
Officer
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Tony Slater
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Clare Turner
Officer
Councillor Clare Turner
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Clare Turner
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Andrew Brown, Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Officer
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Clare Turner
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Clare Turner
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield

12 Financial Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 2

Share this agenda point

Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Gina Blomefield
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Joe Harris
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Gina Blomefield
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Gina Blomefield
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Andrea Pellegram
Councillor Gina Blomefield
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield

13 Waste Fleet Replacement

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield

13 Waste Fleet Replacement

Share this agenda point

Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Andrea Pellegram
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Andrea Pellegram
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Andrea Pellegram
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor David Cunningham
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Tony Slater
Councillor Andrea Pellegram
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Clare Turner
Councillor Andrea Pellegram
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Gina Blomefield
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Clare Turner
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Andrea Pellegram
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Tony Slater
Councillor Andrea Pellegram
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Andrea Pellegram
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
David Stanley, Deputy CEO
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Andrea Pellegram
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Clare Turner
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Councillor Clare Turner
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Andrew Brown, Officer
Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Councillor David Cunningham
Councillor Mike Evemy
Councillor Gina Blomefield
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:00:07

Good afternoon, everyone.

A warm welcome to everyone present, including any members of the public,

whether in person or watching online.

I also want to acknowledge, as always, and welcome the cabinet members and

officers who will be giving their reports to all the members of the

support, overview and scrutiny in its functions. Normal procedure, housekeeping, fire exit

there, toilet facilities outside there. Please can everybody make sure you've turned off

or put on silent any mobile device. And if anybody does wish to record the proceedings,

that's permitted provided it does not disrupt it.

We do have some apologies.

1 Apologies

So Councillor Lisa Spivey and Councillor John Waring have given apologies, and I don't think

we have any substitutes for them.

2 Substitute Members

No?

Okay.

No, but I don't know.

Michael's the expert in this.

3 Declarations of Interest

They're missing out. They should be queuing up to come. Right. Before we actually go into

the main body of the meeting, could all members of the committee introduce themselves? And

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:01:44

we'll start with Councillor Harris. I'm Councillor Joe Harris. I'm the district

Councillor for St. Michael's Ward in Sire and Susto which is just the other side of that building.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:01:53

Michael Van Fairford North. Nick Bridges, Baltimore.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:01:59

Claire Sayer, Blockley Ward. Tony Slater, Grumbold's Ash with 8 men.

Councillor Tony Slater - 0:02:06

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:02:10

I'm Councillor Angus Jenkinson, I'm from Moreton East.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:18

I am as well as being chair of overviews, I am a district member of the council for

Camden and Vale. Has anybody got any declarations of interest in matters which are going to

be discussed at this meeting? Councillor Jenkins.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:02:36

Thank you, chair. I am not sure whether I need to announce these but for the avoidance

of doubt. I checked in with the Monitoring Officer. She said it wasn't clear exactly

one way or another, but to be safe rather than sorry. There are two things that might

be relevant. I don't see that the first is of likely to be significant here, but I think

I have to put it onto my general declarations that I haven't yet, which is that I got asked

to be the chair of the North Cotswold Liberal Democrat Party, so I have a sort of responsibility

there that I didn't have before, probably not important. But the other one is that on

the steering, in association with the responsibility I've taken, I'm on the steering group of the

Upper Thames Catchment Partnership, which works with farmers. And one of the items on

agenda has a peripheral relationship with farming.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:03:45

Thank you and nobody's got anything else to declare. Have you all read the minutes

4 Minutes

for those of you, I think everybody was at the last meeting, and have you got any

comments or corrections that you feel need to be added? Are we content that

those minutes are accurate? Lovely. Could I have a proposer and seconder for those

minutes. Andrew, you take it? Eyes went right. I think it was Claire Turner. Thank you very

much. And then could everybody vote that we're happy with those minutes? Thank you. That's

5 Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting

carried unanimously. Matters are rising. There wasn't anything from the last meeting, but

there was something which was carrying forward from the previous meeting and

because we had still haven't heard from Matt Britton's information on how the

numbers of houses were determined for regulation 18. I have just heard from

Andrew Brown that Matt Britton has come up with this but he just wants to cheque

it with Helen Martin who I think is coming oh it's going to be online I

think later to make sure that she's happy with his explanation so that will

be forthcoming in due course.

If you've got a problem with the website, but I can't access the meeting papers,

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:05:10

I'm a digital only person, so would you be able to just email them along to me, please?

Or if you've got a physical copy, I'm happy to take it.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Sorry for the fuss.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:05:29

Bless you, Councillor Bridges.

That was, yes.

Right, for the Chair's announcements.

6 Chair's Announcements

I hope you all had a good Christmas break and I wish you all a Happy New Year.

I also want to particularly thank all the officers who work to ensure the smooth running of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

And in particular, Andrew Brown sitting to my left and Julia Gibson over, sitting behind.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank my Vice Chair, Councillor Angus

Jenkinson, who's been of great assistance and not only in the meetings but also in

the preparation for the meetings. In addition, I just want to say what is already

included in the work plan for O &S, we will be looking at the next preparation

of the local plan in due course, so that will be put onto the agenda when it's

appropriate and also scrutinising the preparations of the local government reorganisation

in the spring.

Just to go on now, I don't think we've got any members of the public here, so there are no public questions.

7 Public Questions

I don't think any have been written in

and I don't believe that we have any members questions, no members questions either.

To go on to item nine,

9 Report back on recommendations

report back on recommendations to cabinet. We didn't make any recommendations to cabinet at the previous meeting, so we have nothing to follow up on there.

10 Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees

We have moved around the normal order of the meeting a little and so for number 10

we've got the updates from Gloucester County Council's scrutiny committees.

I want to thank Councillor Jenkinson for his detailed report attached to these papers

and also for the comments he's made at the end.

It would seem that there are various members

of the Gloucester Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee

from other parts of Gloucestershire

who do not regularly turn up or engage with this committee,

which is disappointing, as clearly there are great benefits

from coming better informed and sharing in discussion regards

to managing the economic development

across the whole county.

I also want to thank Councillor Neill, who's no longer on O &S,

but her report on HOSC, which really helps understand

how the focus of our local NHS services,

including the five -year plan,

and outlined 10 -year health plan for Britain.

Clearly, technology and AI are going to play a big part

in the transformation to improve these services.

I don't know if anybody wants to make any comments

on either of those two reports.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:08:12

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:08:16

Thank you, Chair. I think I've already provided enough without contributing further comment.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:08:25

Well, thank you. We didn't on these minutes, we normally have a little time scheduling

idea indication. They didn't go on. I'm not in the minutes on the agenda. We would expect

11 Service Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 2

or hopefully that this service performance report will take about 45 minutes. We don't

have a minute. I'm not going to stick to it, but that's just to get it into your thinking

that 45 minutes seems to be about the right length of time. So who... Oh, right. Right

on cue, Councillor Evony, leader of the council,

introduced this with support from Alison Barrett,

Senior Performance Analyst Officer.

Thank you, thank you.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:09:16

Thank you, Chair.

I was observing how fast you were going through in the other

room in my office, so glad I just arrived in time.

So what you've got, obviously, before you is the call

to report. So here to answer any questions or hear any concerns or

observations that members of the committee have. Good to see obviously in

terms of above target performance on some of our areas and yes obviously

things where we haven't not performing quite as strongly as we would like to be

and there's been quite detailed explanations of those in the report.

So I really was not going to say any more other than to hear the observations

and Alison and I to answer any questions that members of the committee may have.

Well, thank you for that.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:10:12

I'm just looking around, seeing for anybody who's got any ...

This cannot be the case. Come on.

Okay.

If no one else does, I do.

Councillor Jenkinson.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:10:36

He's not even on speaker, so Councillor Jenkinson.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:10:42

Let me first of all put what you've just heard from Councillor Cunningham in a different way,

which is that I'm pleased to see that there's many positive

aspects in what you've reported.

There's also very many statistics and very many details

being described, and if I was to try and investigate and explore

all of them with you, it would take a very long time.

So I came up with the notion that I could perhaps ask

a very general strategic question.

It seems to me that there's a fundamental issue to do with

issue with targets and their measurement, which goes to the

heart of how systems work in organisations.

And so my general question, which I particularly apply to

the summarised ones about the positives and the negatives

that you go through in detail, why are these targets the right

ones, and how were they determined?

Can you explain, are there some general rules, principles, background, history, dogma, government

laws, whatever, that specify that, for example, such and such must be 20 days, or something

else must be five days, a very exact number, by the way, and I'll come back to that.

How come these are the targets?

because it is decades since general business stopped working that way and

started working in a different way. I can take that one, thank you Councillor.

Officer - 0:12:20

And so for the majority of them they are government targets, so 20 days for

FOIs, 10 days for land charges and they are government targets and done

planning targets. The percentages are government targets again. There are some

that are service targets, such as waste is service targets.

They do get reviewed every year, and it's for the services,

sort of they sort of put their own targets on.

They've been sort of the same for quite a long time.

But we do review them yearly and see whether they want to shift

any up or down.

But, yeah, so the majority, I think about 70 percent of them

are government targets.

the rest are sort of service targets that they aim for.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:13:09

Then my response to that would be that we should write to the

government and inform them that arbitrary targets such as these

went out certainly in the 1990s in general business world of

Europe and America and went out in other parts of the world

decades earlier. It just doesn't make sense to pluck some arbitrary target out and say

that we're trying to do it. But if we are, then we're trying to create systems to achieve

particular numbers, if that's what it is. I have a follow -up question then. So that's

– I'm serious. I'm really serious. This is – arbitrary targets are not the way to

run and we should tell the government – we should ask the government to justify those

numbers as a standard number, presumably from across the country, as to why it should be

such and such. No doubt the leader would have a point of view on whether he wants to do

a thing like that or not, but it's a concern because it affects what we deliver to the

local public. If we've got a number given to us, which is in this form, 20 days, what

What does 19 .62 to two decimal points amount to, especially given the sort of numbers that

we are analysing on?

It seems to me that these are, again, statistically false levels of supposed accuracy, which,

in fact, conceal the general picture of what's actually going on.

19 .62 would round to 20 or it would round to 19 .6 at the most.

Why are we doing it to two decimal points?

If I come back on the more general point,

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:15:02

then Allison might want to answer that last point.

So thanks, Angus.

I think if I'm my understanding of it is that I guess what it

does do is it does get a setter and expectation,

And you might, I wouldn't disagree with you that potentially that expectation is not necessarily

clear where it's come from.

It's obviously a national expectation, as Alison has said, most of it that the government

has said.

And whether, you know, getting something within 10 days is good or not, it's an arbitrary

number.

And I guess, but in the way that, you know, the government works and they're obviously

measuring us against some of these targets, particularly in

the planning section.

So if we don't deliver to their targets, they have sanctions

that they can use against us.

So it is important that we as a council monitor and evaluate,

are we meeting the government targets and if we're not,

what we're doing about it.

But I do accept your point that that isn't necessarily

good enough.

It's just what the government needs, which I guess, you know,

obviously what Allison has also said, there are other things

in there like, you know, the number of missed collections,

which is, I think, a local target.

And there is the opportunity for us to say, well, yeah,

we've got 80 per 100 ,000 of the figures.

You know, could we get that down?

And, yeah, that's something that the officers actually look at

and potentially with the portfolio hold if they want

to make a change to that.

But I think the more general point is that targets enable us

to measure and, yeah, where we have to measure it.

the government, we are sharing information.

So, for those of you who are not aware, there's something called

LG Inform, which is a website which the run by the LGA, which

has all councils across the country are putting data into,

enables you to compare your council against others.

So, I would encourage any of you who haven't been on there to

have a look at that, and where they do measure some of these

targets that we have to produce nationally.

But, yeah, I accept the point that a national target is a bit

blunt instrument but the government doesn't seem to be moving away from

blunt instruments for councils at the minute. Alison's got anything on your

more detailed point at the end about decimal points. It's just a legacy

Officer - 0:17:23

basically it's how the service provide the information to us to two decimal

points how we provide it to you if you prefer it to be rounded up we can round

them up and they just take the number of applications that they've received from

the start of the month to the start of the quarter to the end of the quarter

divided by the number of processing days and it comes out and they give it to two decimal

places. So if you prefer it in a round number, happy to provide that. If you prefer it into

one decimal place, happy to provide that as well.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:17:52

I would recommend you to consider what constitutes a meaningful level of accuracy. If 17 decimal

places was the answer, I'd accept it. But I don't believe that it works out when you're

talking about, it's three hours in a day and whatever, something like that.

If I move on then, on this subject, there were some issues specifically around hardship

matters. I mean rebates, for example, council rebate, which I assume is for people who might

be more financially strapped, which were delayed. And I'm wondering whether why, why the

That kind of thing is not prioritised because it's clear

that all kinds of systems are being improved and you're making

great improvements in what's going on.

I'm very concerned about whether we are exposing some of the more

those who are in greatest hardship to potential problems.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:18:59

Maybe if I can pick that up because obviously the service

area on here represented this afternoon. But I mean clearly there's quite a bit

of detail on page 159 para 3 .4 and on page 160 about some of the challenges

that there have been and I'm confident that the team there will prioritise

making sure that particularly those who are most financially challenged in our

communities get the support that they need.

You can read in there about, you know, obviously there's been a

change away from housing benefit towards universal credit among

working age people.

And some of the challenges that have happened in this year, but

actually that has largely improved and there's been a

significant improvement in quarter two, but obviously

because it's an annual figure, we're still looking at

cumulative, which is not where we'd want it to be.

So, and obviously there's nothing they can do about the

past other than to potentially mitigate anything that should

happen that should be similar in future.

But I'm certainly, I'm confident that, you know,

Mandy Farr does lead to that team and she will make sure

that her team are, yeah, learning from what they've

been through and also, you know, continuing to get improvements

in the speed in which we can respond to people's change

of circumstances in their request because, you know,

the point you make is that, you know,

the people who are asking for this help are generally those

on the lowest incomes in our district and, you know,

they're least able to manage financially

without the money essentially.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:20:43

I think I'll just get a, for anybody watching on this thing.

Mike Ebony's working from the cabinet papers,

which got a different, a different numbering

to the ones that we've got here.

So if you were looking and wondering about that.

So it was on page 29 and was it 31 as well?

So that released that.

So just to stop any confusion.

I was going to comment on 29.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:21:10

I did actually want to comment on the item on page 29 about land

charge searches where it's an excellent demonstration of how

a system has been brought in that has clearly improved the way it works,

and that's reflected in the chart that is given for it.

And so clearly you've achieved a great deal of control there.

As a technical matter, I think that a three -sigma control chart

is better than a one -sigma control chart in terms of what it will teach you.

But it's a good example of how the Council is putting in place systems

and making things happen.

I have a question which applies just as much to finances, to service performance.

As the leader is here, perhaps I could put it now, it concerns the putting aside of money

for appeals on the one hand, that's the finance side, and on the other hand the fact that

we have been losing more appeals.

We have not done so well on appeals claims.

And in the present situation, which is a little bit more like the Wild West for developers,

it is not unsurprising that we might find ourselves in a situation.

So there's a policy level at some point where, as a council, we have to decide, are we going

to carry on making the decision that we believe should be the right one for the area, never

remind the fact that there is a danger of being an appeal and losing? Or are we going

to adjust our standards in order to prevent appeals taking place that cost us money? Which

route of how are we going to play off those two different things? And on the one hand,

that's a kind of service level issue here. And on the other hand, of course, it's a finance

issue for our finance officer to look at.

And I'm wondering how we are currently approaching

that as a strategic policy.

I'm going to make an attempt at a first answer.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:23:20

We've also got Helen as the service lead for planning

on the call.

And obviously, we've got David Stanley in the room.

I think we might have touched on this at a previous committee

and when we were going through the local plan, I think,

in terms of the balance between, and when obviously we talked

about having lost our five -year land supply

and the tilted balance in favour of applications that the

committee and the offices are now sort of going

through applying.

So I'm very conscious that the planning committee is its own

body and makes its decisions based on its advice obviously

and interaction with the officers.

And then most of our decisions are, you know, obviously made

by the officers under delegated powers.

But it's likely that the most controversial ones will be

coming through the committee.

And I think, I mean, my take on it would be, and I'll then hand

over to the officers, is that there's inevitably a balance

and what the committee and the officers are looking at when

they're looking at applications.

And we've said this in the local plan is, you know,

essentially we're not giving up on our current local plan you know if a

speculative application comes in it will be looked at carefully and robustly but

the officers and the committee need to know the tilted balance is in place so

if something that potentially two or three years ago could have been refused

may now be approved and certainly had an example of that in my ward so I think

So, what I would say, and I'll hand over to David,

I think it is prudent that we put more money by appeals,

because what we need to be able to do is defend decisions

that are made by our offices and our committee.

But I think they need to be, obviously,

those, the committee and the offices are mindful of the fact

that the tilted balance is in play, and therefore, you know,

that they may grant permission for maybe applications

that they wouldn't have done two or three years ago.

Thank you for that.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:25:33

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:25:43

Thank you, chair.

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 0:25:49

In terms of outlining the financial position, what is in the report that will follow this

agenda item is purely looking at the financial risk that the council has

around planning appeal costs and as the leader said it's prudent to set aside

some of that in -year gain because the amount of income that we've had from

planning fees is in excess of the budget to set that aside against that future

risk. It is not making a judgement as to whether or not it's sensible to spend

that money on appeals that is that wider discussion that the council needs to

have but setting aside the funding to be able to have that decision -making

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:26:35

process in place is prudent. That was clear already but thank you David.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:26:40

Thank you thank you. I think it's Councillor Slater please. Thank you Chair.

Councillor Tony Slater - 0:26:45

Page 28 slash 78 depending on where we're looking is about the planning

enforcement cases. Now I think 648 was the number we looked at in September

when we had this special presentation and the comments largely reflect what

happened in that presentation. For example the staffing shortages and a

clearance plan in development. Can you update us what the current number is

after, because that's sort of three months ago, and how that development plan is coming

along, clearance development plan is coming along. And the second one is page 36 slash

86, missed bins per 100 ,000. Do these figures or will they exclude or include weather related

issues? So for example, Greater Tethbury, including evening, which is my ward, didn't

a collection today because of the little bit of frost that was on the ground. Hopefully

they're coming back tomorrow but as it's going to be minus four or five again tonight they probably

won't. So I just wonder how those incidents are reflected in these figures. Thank you.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:28:11

So in terms of your first question I think we've got Helen is on the line. I don't know if either

you can give Councillor Slater any numbers.

He may not be able to, but to answer his question

on where we are with planning enforcement, Helen.

Thank you, Mike.

Yes, unfortunately I don't have any up -to -date numbers

in front of me, but I will happily provide them

to you outside of the meeting, Councillor.

But what I can tell you is we are in the middle

of a recruitment process and we are hoping

to be much more fully staffed as the new year progresses

and therefore to see some significant movement

in the backlog, but more than happy to provide updated numbers for you outside of the meeting.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:28:52

Thank you. And then if I come back on the missed bins

and maybe Alison add, my understanding of missed bins, we've got Andrea as the portfolio

holder at the back there, having been the portfolio holder in the past is what we are

seeing here is what you've just described as a service failure, Tony. So that's when

essentially we failed to collect a series of properties for a specific

reason today it was a weather sometimes it's because they've been the lorries

broken down sometimes it's because the lorries full what's reported here is

where essentially we've missed a house so it's not we've missed everywhere

because the van so we know about the service failures we go back to the

missed businesses really about these are the places where you know we shouldn't

missed them. So there is a bit of an issue and that's why I was pointing to

Andrea at the back in terms of from a customer's perspective they don't

necessarily notice the difference. Other than service failure is probably

everybody in your road or in your village has not had their collection

done and it's very obvious because the bins are still out. Whereas a missed bin

may only be you because there was a different crew and they didn't know they

had to get it from a particular part where you always put your pin.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:30:03

Councillor Clare Turner - 0:30:13

Thank you. Just following on from that, I do think it will be helpful to inform decisions

around scrutinising today the fleet change. I do think it would be helpful to have the

the service failures reported as a separate measure

for misbin collections, but great to see

that the misbin collection figure has dropped so much,

so that's the first point.

I'd also echo a little bit of what Councillor Jenkinson

was saying around the targets that we use,

and this quarter, the household waste recycled figures

are a good example of where it's a good thing

that there's less arising but it impacts our figure negatively and recycling rates have

driven decisions around waste collection for a long time. So it's not always the most helpful

and we should maybe be looking at sort of total risings and that's one of the reasons

why so little money has been invested historically in waste minimisation for example because

it doesn't impact the big figures that the government are looking at. Anyway that's just

a general comment on what Angus has said. The point I was actually going to raise is

around the leisure centres.

Thank you very much for including the additional figures

we suggested around the complaint data separated out

by the sensor, that's really helpful.

I just wanted to double cheque,

are those figures that are presented in the pie charts

on it's on page 87 of the papers or page 37 of the report,

are they just for this quarter,

for the quarter that we're looking at,

or is that the year to date number of complaints,

or number of feedback incidents,

because they're not all complaints.

And it's just for the quarter, so it's for July to September.

Officer - 0:31:57

But I can, if you would find it more helpful to do from the year,

I can add them in, it's sort of whatever you would prefer.

No, I just wanted to cheque that, so when we look at them quarter on quarter,

Councillor Clare Turner - 0:32:06

that's what we're comparing.

Because I think the, what I see in those pie charts is that's really useful information for siren assessor

and it's very helpful to see the proportion of positive feedback in relation to the complaints.

But obviously then when you look at Chipping Camden and there's so few

feedback it's hard to understand what that means in the context of the users.

So perhaps the lesson for us there is that we just need to encourage people to feedback more at Chipping Camden.

Thanks chair if I could just pick up your first point.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:32:36

Claire I agree I think as I pointed out to Tony there's if the difference between service failures and missed bins.

So actually having a report and if we can take that away, Alison, look at how we can report service failures

so that that's visible to us because actually when you come on to the later report

you'll be talking about actually we've got to replace the vehicle early because of the service failures that have come as a consequence of that vehicle.

And that obviously has had particular effect on certain residents in certain parts of the district which you know

that vehicle is the only one that could access them.

So yeah, I do think it'd be valuable to have a separate report on service failures so that we can monitor

the reliability of our fleet largely it's not completely that but we'll see

those example of Councillor Slater just gave about bad weather but a large part

of it is generally that the vehicle breaks down or the vehicle is full.

I think it also helps us appreciate the customer journey better so we

Councillor Clare Turner - 0:33:36

understand what that experience is particularly if we at some stage want to

up by specific rounds and you can really understand what's been the impact for residents.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:33:49

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:33:51

Councillor Harris. Thank you chair. Yeah I think the first thing to say is that I think we should

laud the success of our waste crews because you know we know that in

conditions like this I mean rather than me you know it really is freezing cold

they do a great job and you know actually they do get to a lot of places

that seem very tricky to get to.

And, you know, clearly where it goes wrong,

we want to rectify that.

But, you know, we've got to remember that running a waste

service in a big diverse rural area is very, very tricky.

And I think if there's one thing that being the leader of this

council taught me, it's that you can't win on the bins

a lot of the time.

And Mike, you told me two years ago when we had the round

changes that, you know, it will get better over time.

It finally is.

So that's great.

So that's really good news.

If I can just change the subject, if I may,

I just want to go to the corporate plan and the priorities in there and just pick out two things, two questions.

The first is on the RAU's application for the innovation village.

And this is clearly something that this council has championed and is totally chewed up in the planning process at the minute.

I think we're waiting on a representation from highways.

So don't worry, Paul James has emailed me.

Here's the portfolio, how do I put representations in.

But, you know, rather than a question, it's a plea that,

can you make sure that, you know, yourself and Jane are

raising this at a strategic level as well so we can try

and get this planning application concluded?

And it's always a funny relationship, isn't it,

when we are either putting a planning application ourselves

or a championing one as the planning authority.

But, you know, we know that the planning process is

independent, so I think it's absolutely, you know,

appropriate to be championing this and trying to ungrease it or grease it I

should say as much as we can to try and get it through the system so that'd be

the first one let's try and get that application over the over the line and

then just a question really on the town and parish council engagement which I

think has been you know really good actually I thought the seminar has had

fantastic feedback that we had last summer and obviously a lot of the work

we've done on the local plan to date has been good and you know credit to you and

and other cabinet members who've been out in you know all weathers and in

village halls and you know cold churches and that sort of thing so well done. What

I wanted to sort of tack away from local plan clearly local plan is important but

it does seem to be swallowing up a lot of the bandwidth as far as the

relationship between Town and Parish Council is. We know that if we want Town

and Parish is to be taking on more services as we move to LGR we need to

start that, you know, there's positive relationships, are we starting to have a

conversation that isn't the local plan with them about LGR or other issues that

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:36:40

we might wish to progress? Thank you, Joe. So yeah, obviously to your first point,

yeah, I mean obviously it's a significant application, needs the due diligence, but

I totally get your point and, you know, the director is on the application

determined but clearly obviously it has to go through due process. In terms of the

towns and parishes yeah as part of the forum that we did in November the two we

did one in Morton and one in Syrinsister we had a slot we it wasn't just all

about the local plan so we did have half an hour both of those for about local

government reorganisation and some quite detailed interrogation and questioning

and discussion particularly at the Moreton event and so yeah but I totally

accept your point that's probably has taken up a lot of the bandwidth the

local plan particularly an engagement with towns and parishes over the last

six months and obviously is we've now come out of the consultation period we'll

be going back into that in the summer but this does give us time to talk more

about the reorganisation obviously we we don't know yet what the decision of the

government's going to be but they have said they're going to consult with with

us and do a public consultation in the spring so you know we will obviously

encourage our towns and parishes to take part in that and residents as well it's

another opportunity to talk to them about, you know, the fact that this is

going to happen. And what we also want to do is to make sure that we are sort of

taking this time between now and the decision to put more meat on the bones

of the neighbourhood partnerships, which you know essentially is what the

structure which we are being currently, the government is encouraging us and we

put in our plans to essentially deal with the democratic deficit of the fact

There'll be a lot fewer of us around in the new unitaries.

So, you know, actually how we engage local people in decisions

that affect them more locally than whether we have a single

county unitary or two county unitaries,

they will be significantly more removed from them than it is now

with the district council that, you know,

each of the six district councils provides for the area.

So, yeah, I totally get your point about how do we continue

to do more engagement about LGR, particularly with

towns and parishes.

And, yeah, the offer was made by both the chief executive and the

deputy chief executive if people want to come and talk to them

from parish councils about how services or assets, those sorts

of issues, that their door is open for a discussion.

You know, I read that North Leach taking on their toilets,

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:39:34

which I think is great.

and you know they should be absolutely lauded and a really good example of

where they can keep a service going and retain that control within their

community and hopefully we'll have lots more North Leeches over the coming years.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:39:54

Councillor David Cunningham - 0:39:57

Thank you. Councillor Cunningham. Thank you Madam Chair. To the Leader I think I did ask this

question of the Chief Executive actually. One of the things that the town and

parish councils have been asking for is more detail on the neighbourhood groups that will

be formed. I know that it is a bit up in the air at the moment, but any additional information

or any additional lead that can be given that can help local councils understand what will

be, not replacing that extra layer, but will help aid them in their correspondence with

the higher authority, I think, would go a long way.

Thank you, David.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:40:38

Yeah, I'm very mindful of that.

And I think, you know, one of the things that is a challenge

is you can't start drawing, well, you can't definitively

be drawing any lines on maps because that will be the

determined, the new authority will determine that.

And also, if there's one or two authorities, the lines might be

drawn differently because if there's two, there's clearly

a line down the middle which doesn't exist if there's one.

So all around Gloucester, I should add, of course.

So, you know, I totally get the point about we're trying

to tell them we want to engage and there needs to be, yeah,

probably picking up on the point that Joe just made,

thinking about how do we engage them more to tell us what they

would like in terms of that as well.

But I know, yeah, in terms of how do we get to that,

it will be a decision for the new council or councils to make.

But I think if we, as predecessor authorities, can work with our towns and

parishes and come with something that when the new authority sort of sets up

in its shadow year, it can fairly early determine that. So they will give

certainty then for the towns and parishes about, you know, how the

neighbourhood partnerships are going to work, what the boundaries are going to be, you

know, all of that sort of stuff. That would be only helpful. But yeah, there's

work to do and it's I totally get why they want to know more. I think you know

I've heard in the side from the former leader it's actually quite tricky because

the government hasn't given a lot more but we you know we will do what we can

working with our colleagues across the other six councils to give to give more

of a to flesh it out a bit more but I'm very conscious that we haven't haven't

done much of that because the constraints of what we've been given. I

Councillor David Cunningham - 0:42:21

I think the questions are oriented more around what they'll do, what powers they'll have,

not where the boundaries will be, to be frank, because they understand fully that that's

not something that can be decided, nor the size of them, nor where they'll begin or end

or whatever.

But just what powers would they possibly have?

How much funding would they get?

Would there be any funding?

Would they be elected or would they be assigned by local councils?

Would reps be seconded onto it?

That sort of detail, I think, is more of what they're looking for.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:43:00

The answer to, I think some of that is probably determined, but quite a lot of it would have

to be determined by the new authority.

In terms of particularly powers, the new authority would have to...

Because essentially, if it's delegating powers away from itself to its neighbourhoods, it's

got to make that decision, we can't make that for it before it exists and it won't exist

until May of 2027.

And so there'll be 11 months of things.

But what we can obviously do is try to put together plans for that so that when people

are elected to that new authority, they can make decisions based on informed discussions

and proposals that have been sort of circulated and consulted upon.

Councillor David Cunningham - 0:43:44

Given that a lot of the people in this room will probably be on one of those authorities, or two, or a donor, or what else, maybe just an idea of what you'd like yourself, Mark, would be a good help.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:43:55

It might be a good help, but I don't have a formed view on that, David, and I'd want to work with colleagues from other councils to come up with some proposals.

What a politician you are, Mark.

Councillor David Cunningham - 0:44:04

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:44:07

Right, well thank you for that. I've actually got three which are going to be following

up on Councillor Jenkinson's things about metrics really. I noticed that the recycling

figure was depressed by the reduced amount of green waste over the recent very dry summer.

Surely this is not a very good metric to use when so it's so climate dependent. That was

the first one. There was another one where he talked about the searches being how quickly

there being done.

And a local estate agent said to me, indicated to me,

that they had a notification from CDC saying

that these searches would now be done in under 40 days.

Is that a change on that metric?

And then on the, and this maybe Helen might be able to help

with this one, the planning appeals.

The amount that have gone to appeal, were they largely

for large developments or was it for single houses or ones

which groups of six has?

It'd be quite interesting to find

out whether it's just really the large, I mean, what proportion

of the planning appeals, where did they come from

and what sort of, what did they represent?

So that was my first three questions.

Thank you.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:45:23

If I do the first one, don't know about this

and leave the third one to Helen.

Not sure we can give you an answer on the second one

because I don't think there's anyone here from that area but I don't think

we've changed not so changing our service standard but in terms of the

waste metric I totally agree and I think Councillor Turner made that point you

know it's it's a bit nonsensical if the grass doesn't grow so much so people

aren't filling their green bins up so much then actually depresses our

recycling rate well it's not really recycling is it so because it's green

waste so it would make sense to have a metric which is separate but coming back

to cut the Jenkins point the government determines metrics that we have to work

by but I don't know Alison if we could look at how can we essentially if we're

pulling this information together can we produce a metric which separates out the

grass although we've got to produce the overall metric can we separate out the

stuff and just look at the the other stuff that we collect the recyclables

so that we can see how we're doing on those because yeah obviously that's

important to know if if people were stopping recycling then that would be

more concerning than you know basically there's no grass to cut so the bins are

not as full.

Andrew Brown, Officer - 0:46:44

And Helen have you got an answer on the planning appeals?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:46:45

or perhaps not?

I will try and answer it for you.

The correct answer is probably I'll need to go away

and cheque exactly which appeals we've had

because I can only tell you based on the evidence

of what I've seen come through my inbox.

But my experience is it's a mix of applications.

So some of them will be domestic extension,

some of them will be residential development,

but some of those are smaller scale.

The majority of the developments that we're seeing

that are probably in the category of speculative and larger

as a result of the housing number change,

haven't had a chance to go through the appeal process yet.

And we certainly have seen in the last month or so,

so predating these figures,

a slight improvement in our performance

and improved decision -making in the council's favour

coming out from PIN.

So I would, if you're agreeable,

happy to take away to come back

with some more detail on that for you.

But my gut feel is that it's a range

of different applications and that the actual trend

is slightly improved in the latter period.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:47:41

That's very helpful. I mean, I just felt that it was obviously going to impact what

costs might be

from the planning appeals so that it's not just out of curiosity. It is the big I think Patrick Coleman would also like to come in

our cabinet member for finance. He's coming out.

Of course allow you to come in.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:48:04

Chair, this discussion sounded familiar to me and I discovered that I had indeed on the

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:48:18

7th of August emailed Juliet Laitin and the chair and vice chair of the committee I think

and Harrison Boley and others. I was struck by the recent flurry of planning appeals that

are allowed. Eight in two months across six sites, five different case offices, one with

costs allowed as well, none dealt with by committee.

So whilst it's distressing to lose appeals,

and there was a very interesting reply,

which I won't trouble you with now,

but a very sound reply, of course, from Harrison Boley,

I think, the committee's hands are tightly clean.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:48:59

And if I could at some point have the answer on whether

the time for doing the searches,

have you got the answer on that?

Thank you.

I don't have the answer.

Officer - 0:49:08

For number one, we can definitely separate out the green waste and the normal waste and

I'll figure out a way to sort of show them all so that we don't get any confusions there.

And then on the second one, our targets haven't changed.

They are 10 days response time.

So I will cheque with the service and sort of see.

David Stanley's just showed that on our website.

It also indicates that we will respond within 40 days.

So I don't know whether irregularity is coming from there, but I will get a response for

and I do apologise.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:49:41

Thank you very much for that. No, it was just as they mentioned it to me and I thought, ooh, I didn't know about that.

I just, there's two further questions really. One was that the Climate Board, which was agreed by Cabinet in July,

will they be meeting this month and who will be on that board? And then the final one is the,

has the new Culture Support Officer been appointed and how many hours will they be working and how will they be

seeking to develop creative Cotswolds action plan? Is it through participation

workshops, festivals, working with schools, people in need of support? Thank you.

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:50:21

I can't without looking at my diary which I was just trying to do but you

finished your second question before I got there chair. I'm not sure when the

meeting of the Climate Board is.

We had one before Christmas, which fed into the decision

you're gonna look at, scrutinise,

and a little bit on the waste vehicle replacement.

In terms of the membership, the permanent membership

is of members, is myself and the lead

for Climate Councillor McEwen, and other members

of cabinet invited to attend as appropriate

for the agenda items so Councillor Pellegram and Councillor Coleman were

actually both at that meeting so I mentioned there is one coming up but I

will have to cheque my diary to answer that. 25th of February. Thank you Andrew

is the next meeting of the Climate Board and a Culture Support Officer I don't

know if there's anyone here who can answer that might need a response I

I can't give you an answer on that one.

All of us, but we'll read through the minutes here,

or through the details report here.

It says that the inaugural one will be this month.

Now, presumably this was written perhaps in December,

which is why I'm asking.

Yeah.

So I think that's why I was wondering on that one.

It was definitely November or December before Christmas.

I can't remember exactly the date of that meeting.

Right, well thank you.

Oh, sorry.

Councillor Jenkinson and Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:52:12

I held off on this question because I didn't know how many others there would be, and it could have come later, so it also applies to the later item.

But it picks up the point that was made by Claire and others on the question of recycling.

And very interestingly, you discussed the very point I was going to bring.

The question was going to be how much compost do we make?

And do you measure how much compost is produced?

So general point, it doesn't look like your figures are being managed on a seasonal basis.

And clearly there needs to be a seasonal basis in order to score how well you're doing

but the bigger question is when you're collecting green waste it can be turned into compost and

Compost is first of all a fantastic capture of carbon

So in terms of the impact that we would be having on carbon. There's a huge amount

That we could measure and say this is the impact we're having on carbon

And if we're not measuring that already and including it in our

struck, in our overall figures, I recommend that we should.

And secondly, of course, compost is incredibly valuable for

agriculture, farming, gardening, whatever.

So are we measuring how much compost we're producing and the

amount of carbon that is being captured in it and its

contribution to biodiversity?

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:53:36

I know that it is pre -cycled and it is used your right and I remember when I was a portfolio

holder a couple of years ago I was told it was done up near Purton so that's taken up

there.

I think probably, I haven't got that obviously in front of me so I think we'll just have

to provide you with a written answer Angus but definitely we collect it and we do turn

it into compost.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:54:04

I recommend that is the number that you try and track. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:54:12

Councillor Clare Turner - 0:54:16

Councillor Turner. Thank you. I just wanted to touch on the affordable homes

delivered. That's one of the few areas where the council is underperforming.

I think the report clearly sets out the reasons for that and that much of this

is beyond our control. But it generates two questions for me. Given that we're underperforming

against a goal, is this information being used to illustrate to the government that

a targeted loan doesn't help us deliver affordable housing? And sort of second to that, are we

drawing lessons from what's happened to date and the barriers that we faced in delivering

those numbers of affordable homes is that feeding into the local plan as it's

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:55:07

being developed? Thank you. I don't think we've used it thus far but we're always

using for more more arguments that we can make Claire so I think we certainly

could say you know as we know delivering affordable homes and especially social

rented homes in this district is not easy and you know we're trying to do as

much as we can so that we know we have a places for people to live that can't

afford to buy a house at the prices that they are in the Cotswold district so

definitely I think we you know would want to make the point and then linking

on to the local plan maybe we've got Helen obviously on the call but yeah

having a plan doesn't mean you're delivering the houses it just means

you've got a plan and you know as we know then one of the reasons we're

struggling here is the developers haven't made the start so you know we

would expected them to have made and despite the fact you know we might hope

that we're going to have a new local plan that still doesn't mean necessarily

that even if sites allocated that it comes forward and you know until it

comes forward then you don't get the affordable housing you look poised to

ask me another question you want to answer that ask that and then Helen can

come in and not hopefully answer.

Clarify my question, really.

So I suppose my question around that really is,

Councillor Clare Turner - 0:56:22

is there anything that we can include policy -wise

around what we expect of developers and so on

that will help us do exactly what you've just described?

I'm gonna pass that one straight over to Helen, I think,

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:56:35

as the professional to say something that we can do.

Thank you.

The answer to that is obviously we will take all evidence

that we can into account and things like

level of affordability, the impact on people's ability to

afford homes, the need feeds into the local plan, what it

drives is the policy for affordable homes, which will

ultimately come out with a percentage of which we expect

each development to deliver. So over x number of homes, you must

provide 50 % of them as affordable. And what that mix

looks like will also be looked at in terms of evidence and

data. But as the leader said, the real problem that we have is

we're not the delivery mechanism for this. So we can create the

conditions, we can allocate sites and we can have policies that set out our clear expectation,

but we're not the delivery agent. So we are still requiring on people coming forward,

seeking planning permission, granting planning permission, and then implementing it, and

also not at any point during that application consideration process, arguing viability that

reduces that affordability level. So we will do what we can through the local plan to create

the conditions and we will work with Alan Hope and his strategic housing arm to try

and do what we can to encourage and deliver,

but ultimately we are unfortunately relying

on other parties to actually do the delivery

of affordable homes.

Thank you.

I think we've got Councillor Harris, please.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:57:55

I just wanted to comment on that.

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:58:00

I mean, I think the big spanner in the works really,

particularly pertaining to delivery is LGR

because for a number of years,

you know the administration has been clear we want to get to a direction of

travel where we had more control over the delivery either looking at delivery

company or even maybe down the line to delivering houses ourselves. LGR has put

a complete kibosh on that so we're in the position that we've always been in

which we are you know we're beholden to other forces aren't we whether that's a

housing association the big developers and and all the rest of it and I think

Helen there in her answer sort of you know leading to it. Ultimately the

delivery of affordable housing and when I say affordable housing I mean genuinely

affordable housing in the context of the consoles which is social rented homes is

totally at the mercy of whether it's commercially viable for a big developer

or even a housing association to do. So ultimately it's totally rigged against

us as a council I'd argue you want to be proactive about delivering affordable

housing and totally stacked in favour of these big developers who build at scale

and make billions of pounds worth of profit donate to Conservatives and Labour.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:59:20

Yes well thank you for that and of course well we all know the word affordable is a

in the Cotswolds, even affordable on that basis doesn't mean what we understand. And also I personally have a huge concern that

developers are not finishing the estates in the way they should so that the highways are not being adopted, the suds aren't being adopted, and

of the costs of all these things are going to be put onto the residents and that would include the housing

associations who have to then share it with their

they'd like to call them customers, but they're tenants. I find the whole system is

not fit for purpose. I would agree with you. So there we are. I'm in total agreement

personally and I shouldn't be putting my view on that but I do strongly feel that

it's not right. And I'm sure Helen is doing her best to make sure that none

of those problems happen but we know. So thank you. Is there anything else that

anybody else want to say on this issue?

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:00:24

I think we could formally agree what you've just said. It's a really big issue.

Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:00:32

Have a subject which we want to recommend to Cabinet from these discussions,

or is it just that we acknowledge the report?

We thank you very much for – it's very clear.

I think they've improved so much.

I've been on overview and exclusion a number of years now,

and it really is a huge improvement and much easier to understand.

I think there's a few more benchmarking things that you're looking to,

comparisons that you're going to look to include in the future.

It's always good.

before we always used to compare ourselves against West Oxfordshire and things, which

weren't for Surdine, and since they were also run by Publica, that didn't always make a

very good comparison. It's much better to have other similar councils, but in other

parts of the country. So thank you very much for that.

Did anybody else have been no recommendation? I don't feel. Thank you very much. Thank you

for your time.

It's more of an encouragement than a recommendation.

12 Financial Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 2

change. The next item is the financial report, performance

report for 2025 -2026, Court 2. And for this we've got Councillor Patrick Coleman, will

introduce the item as Cabinet Member for Finance, supported by David Stanley, our Deputy Chief

Executive Officer and Section 151 Officer. So, thank you. Would you like to, when you're

settled with your report. Thank you.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:02:07

Thank you, Chair. Yes, this is a financial performance report for the second

financial quarter of the year, quarter two, and I'm pleased to say that thanks

to the highly professional leadership that we have here both in finance and

overall from our chief executive and our deputy chief executive, that the positive

signs we saw at the end of quarter one, when I reported to you three or four

months ago have continued and there are no significant adverse trends and I

think the only point I wanted to stress at this stage is we didn't get here by

good luck, certainly not by good luck alone. We got here because we have an

extremely, in my personal view and I've done a few years in local government, an

extremely talented top leadership in our chief executive and deputy chief

executive and the savings that have been achieved and the preparation for the

less welcome option should local government reform be delayed you can see

from these figures that we're doing our best to prepare for that situation and

thinking about what we spend the money on we are getting closer to a decision

on how to introduce the new waste vehicles, which I think a lot of us are

looking forward to, and which of course have to be financed. Initially we thought

we're going to have to borrow a large sum. I won't say what it was because I

can't remember it seemed to have a six million in it at some point, and I'm

pretty confident we won't be borrowing that much. But I have to stress in

conclusion that I have not checked any of his comments with our Chief Finance

Officer and Deputy Chief Executive, so I'm sure he'll take the opportunity to correct

or temper what I've just said. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:04:12

Thank you. David Sudden, do you want to make a comment at this point?

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:04:17

Thank you, Chair. Just to say the positive outcome, I would look at table ES2 on page

page 94 of the PACS, a lot of red.

For those of you with black and white, that's probably not much

of a helpful comment, but those numbers have got brackets round

which does tend to distinguish between black and black,

in black and white.

Really, the comment here is linked to paragraph 2 .5 on

pages 91 and 92, which is shown in that table on page 94.

taking the opportunity to reduce the financial pressures in future years.

So you will notice that the bottom line variation, if you go to the very bottom net out turn,

the middle number in that, those columns, 16 with brackets around, it's not a very big number,

but there are a significant number of additional transfers to earmarked reserves that mitigates future financial pressures.

So we've already had a discussion around development management fees.

So a 400 ,000 pound excess income or additional income has been forecast for the year.

It would be prudent to set that aside in an appeals reserve just in case there is additional

pressure in future financial years because not all of that planning fee income may result

in houses being built.

There may be appeals that we need to cover off.

The vacancy management process that was outlined in the Q1

report, there is a 710 ,000 transfer to EMR reserves from

a combination of measures around vacancy management.

So that's a very proactive approach that the corporate

leadership team with the endorsement cabinet have taken

to ensure that we're only putting in place base budget

funding for posts that are absolutely essential over the

next two years' LGR approaches.

And there's also a transfer of three hundred forty six thousand of the additional Treasury management income

Treasury management reserve that provides some

security around where the council may need to be

With its longer -term Treasury management position in the future should there be a need to change

the pooled funds that we've got the longer -term investments or

or as the interest rate that has been reduced in December

continues to be reduced during 26, 27.

I think there's two further interest rate reductions

pencilled in by the market and by Treasury advisors,

although very, very much dependent on what's going on

in the wider world, and there have been some events

in the wider world that might have an impact

on all sorts of other things.

But just to say, I think what this report sets out is that continuing trend.

Just to give you some up -to -date information on car parking fees,

so we've forecast $174 ,000 of additional income in this report.

That was up to the end of Q2.

The performance up to the end of Q3 is equally positive

and would expect that trend to continue given the evidence that I've seen

with my own eyes in the car parts of the district over the Christmas period but

happy to take any questions as is Councillor Coleman.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:07:39

Councillor Joe Harris - 1:07:40

Thank you both, really good report. Can I just ask around this issue that I raised

I think it was in the autumn around enforcement I know that we that were

periods and perhaps we weren't enforcing and I think it might have been Sunday off the top of my

So have we sort of rectified that now?

Are we sort of enforcing regularly, you know,

across the week and at all times that we charge for?

So I'll provide a proper written response,

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:08:09

but there is enforcement taking place more regularly

than there was previously.

There has been some challenge in recruiting to a full team,

as has been the case with planning enforcement,

recruiting the complement of staff that the service have deemed is adequate

enough to cover all the car parks across the district for the Charitable Times

but I'll get an up -to -date response for you on that Councillor Harris. Thank you.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:08:42

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:08:50

Thank you, Chair.

Well, good to see lots of positive results.

Thank you very much.

I'm interested in 2 .14 on page 96 and related matters.

This is to do with vacant posts.

My question is regarding the impact of the fact that we have

a vacancy in transformation, learning and organisation

development and so on and strategy.

In other words, the transformation process,

I believe, that we were going through and also

in strategic housing.

You've just, on the second point, you've also just been hearing about the concerns we have

with developers not complying completely with the work that needs to be done.

And I'm afraid I bang on every time about the importance of compliance and getting on

top of that issue.

So I wonder if you could give us some idea about, we're saving some money, but what are

costs to the council of not having these positions filled and do we have a full

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:10:15

house for compliance? So just taking that question as an example around the

transformation post that we built into the revenue budget for this year funded

from EMR reserves to positions around transformation a transformation manager

and a transformation support officer.

Council was successful in recruiting the transformation

support officer.

Godwin's been in post for a number of months and has been

working closely with Helen Martin, the director that's got

responsibility for transformation, and with the

leader and the cabinet member with responsibility for

transformation, Councillor Tristan Wilkinson.

We are in a position with our vacancy management where we've

reviewed vacant posts, considered the approach the

council needs to take to delivering the types of

programmes that were set out in transformation, and through

that piece of work identified that actually there was

adequate capacity with Godwin, with Helen leading

that, working very closely with the leader and the

cabinet member to deliver the transformation programme

with more of a focus on delivering outcomes that can be achieved within the limited timeframe

the council's got.

With the other role that's mentioned, learning and organisational development and strategic

housing, certainly with learning and organisational development, the view was that wasn't a requirement

given LGR, and a lot of those posts were identified prior to the council understanding the impact

LGR would have.

But we have been successful in recruiting a business partner

support for HR to assist in some of the case work that is

required to ensure we've got an adequate workforce rather than

investing in learning and organisational development.

We've invested in another part of that service.

And as far as strategic housing is concerned, some of that

conversation I had with Alan Hope, who has that overall

responsibility for strategic housing. Alan did attempt to recruit into that

role, was on sixth vessel, and the view again was given the limited time with LGR,

given the way in which strategic housing, particularly affordable housing deliveries

being approached through a non -interventionist approach and working

with other providers of housing and looking at rural exception sites that

was under that could be managed with existing resources and the part of the

local plan process will work through that. So we've looked at this as a

corporate leadership team to understand what are the needs of the council, what

needs to be delivered over the next two years prior to LGR and then making some

recommendations to cabinet as to whether those roles are required going forward.

that's then released the amount of capacity funds,

710 ,000 that's included in the report.

So thank you.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:13:22

Can I cheque that my understanding is correct then,

or is it too simplistic, that in relation to the question I

asked, because it sounds very good what you just said,

that the effect of having these vacancies and saving money,

the negative or adverse effects of that have been negligible

or nothing, and that whatever is needed in our assessment

has been put in place effectively.

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:13:57

I would suggest that we've managed those vacancies

and managed the workload and the expectations

of what can be achieved given the impact of LGR.

So we've, rather than saying we've been, you know,

be included within the revenue budget three or four posts to

deliver three or four different priorities.

We've looked at those priorities in light of LGR and in light of

what can be achieved and then managed the programme to fit that

resource so there hasn't been a negative impact.

So it's been managed more adequately within those

available resources.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:14:39

I'm just going to miss a bit like an auction, you know careful don't twitch you might be bidding for

something. Has anybody or any other questions? I have some but no. 4 .11 do you have an estimate

for the additional cost to support the emerging corporate plan whilst maintaining services for

residents and also planning for LGR it is that have you got an estimate of

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:15:08

those costs in terms of an estimate of those costs that will largely be

dependent on how the wider local government reorganisation programme is

pulled together across the county and how those costs are apportioned but I

think you could look at the level of the transfer reserve into the capacity

building reserve that we've achieved so far in Q2, 710 ,000,

that would give you an indication as to the scale of,

I suppose, additional support that we might need to keep

services running and to support elements of LGR.

There will be other costs associated with LGR that are

outside of this, which is part of the budget -setting process

that we'll go through in February.

There will be a more detailed section in the budget and MTFS report that will set that

out.

But I would give a conservative estimate of around about a million pounds split roughly

50 -50 across the next two financial years as to the level of reserve that you might

want to support service delivery going forward to ensure that there is always that opportunity

for services to highlight where there are existing pressures, particularly around recruitment

and retention.

And for us then as a council to be best placed to respond to that by not having anything

there, there's only going to be one answer, which is there isn't enough funding to support

that, and you'll see service quality possibly deteriorate as a result.

So setting that money aside is the first step.

then understanding how that would be allocated,

the way in which that would go forward.

And clearly there would be a process that would be put in

place through cabinet in terms of understanding how to access

that funding and how that would get reported through in the

regular financial reports.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:17:09

And also for the emerging corporate plan,

does that have an, I mean, that is all incorporated within that

because that was the actual...

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:17:20

So the corporate plan which was refreshed in the autumn,

I think it was September, October time,

didn't require additional resources to achieve

what was in that corporate plan.

But you'll notice that one of the key priorities

of the organisation is in effect to leave a legacy.

And that legacy is ensuring that we,

whilst we're still a council up until the plan date of the 31st March 2028 are

maintaining and delivering those services that residents feel are really

valuable and important and that will become more of a challenge particularly

in terms of recruiting and retaining staff as we move further into that LGR

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:18:05

timetable. That's fine I mean it just says it is anticipated that additional

capacity will be required to support the delivery of the emerging corporate plans

So that was really the basis of that question.

Thank you for that.

I also, we're on 4 .15.

Residents consider emptying of public waste bins

and dog poo bins as a priority,

especially in heavily visited places

such as Borton on the water.

Will the restructuring make sure

that it doesn't affect this essential service detrimentally

with overflowing bins and waste being blown

around the Cotswold attractions?

It doesn't sound like a very financial question.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:18:46

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:18:51

It was in here because it had a financial implication because you are cutting costs

on that.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:18:57

Just to give David a brief rest, paragraph 415 in effect says although we had a cost

reduction of 300 ,000 pounds in the revenue budget for street cleaning, we are now reckoning

that we may not achieve that and amongst the reasons for that will be we know

that standards of street cleaning are under pressure and the point you've made

very well that we don't want the Cotswolds to become known for its litter

rather than for its attractions and I think that's the cautious approach is

correct in saying that perhaps we're not going to get a lot of savings because

the pressures and the impact, one more hot dry summer is not something we're

looking forward to in terms of Borton on the water and the other pressure points.

But I think again I'll ask David to illuminate what I've said.

Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 1:19:58

Councillor Blanfeld, I'll answer that question for you because I'm the author

of that particular thing. So we are working very very closely with Borton

on the Water Parish Council.

At their request, we are reviewing how waste is collected

in Borton on the water.

There's concern that there are too many bins

and that when they're too small, when they fill up,

there's, you know, people helpfully pile waste

next to the bins, it blows around and everybody's unhappy.

So at their request, we are looking at

how we can actually provide fewer but larger bins,

which then require fewer collections.

And Peter Johnson and I have discussed in detail

how the costs arise from that service.

I'm mindful that I'm supposed to find a savings.

I do think that 300 ,000 per annum is unrealistic,

but I do think that we can make some savings.

So there are a lot of small bins all around the district.

We are using this as an opportunity to see

if we can actually re -jig how we deal with these.

We have fewer bins, larger bins in sort of areas

where there are lots of litter collection problems

like Morton on the Water.

We might also want to look at Morton

on the March eventually.

To see if we can actually work with local litter makers

like the local fast food outlets,

but also to look at how we can actually change

the whole service.

We hope that within six months we'll have enough information

that we can put together a reasonable pilot.

It's my aspiration that we have sort of a two -tier service,

sort of with reduced numbers of collections but better bins.

There are capital outlays, which we haven't considered yet,

so there's a long way to go.

But it is with trying to have fewer collections to cut the

costs but to deliver a more focused kind of collection so

that the parishes are happy with the service they receive.

And I hope that's clear enough for you.

That's very helpful.

I mean, obviously, it has been one

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:22:05

of the areas which it had been looked at to make savings.

And clearly, when it's been investigated

and you're working hard on this, it's

not as easy to achieve these, well, as often is the case.

But thank you for joining in.

It's very useful that you were here this evening as well

to be able to.

My final question was, how much of the income

from the solar PV as opposed to rent from the tenanted areas.

What is the split of that income?

It's sort of run together, I think.

And how much, I mean, more to more, how much does it retain

of the rents to cover the cost of the management?

I think I probably have asked that in some other way before,

but I'm still always permanently curious.

My car is currently at the electric vehicle charging point

and hopefully very pleased to see you don't have idling charges on yours.

So if it's fully charged by the end, I won't have any extra charges for being idling.

Thank you.

Idling.

You never do that.

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:23:06

No.

I'll take that one away.

I think that I don't have enough information in this report or in my head to give you a good answer.

We do have regular quarterly meetings with Watermore Point

to understand the performance, want to a better way of putting

it, in terms of the occupancy of the building and what that's

generating, but there is within the management agreement with

Watermore Point some costs that are incurred from their side,

and then there is an income share that we get.

I would suspect a significant proportion of the additional

income so far has come from the use of the solar PV rather than the rental income from

Baltimore point. And finally on the EV chargers, that's a consistent approach we've adopted

across all the EV charging points because of the nature of most of the EV charging points

we've got are the 7 .4 kilowatt where most of them were made available to residents that

have access to off -street parking and hence the off -street infrastructure they

would have so it's to not penalise those individuals that can make use of

off -street via that access. Well I can tell you in London that is not so

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:24:25

generous you will get idling charges and you have to know well thank you for that

and it was because it was on 4 .25 it was the the two also income were rolled

together. Thank you very much and thank you for coming back to me on the other

matter of how much water more. I've got Councillor Jenkinson and I think that

might be the last question on this unless please anybody else got a

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:24:54

question? Councillor Jenkinson. Thank you very much chair. It's just on the matter

of litter. It's perhaps a matter of information because I'm planning to

right to the relevant cabinet members and officers.

I was approached recently by a local individual who has

organised across more than one cluster of villages a

litter -pick process which is not the same as everywhere

else and it's linked to a kind of cultural programme of

trying to keep the areas clean.

and it happens every single week,

and it happens across a series of walks,

and it preserves virtually zero litter anywhere

across the cluster of villages.

It's done by enthusiastic volunteers who enjoy it

and record what they are doing,

and it makes a real positive process.

He's set up a little sort of mini NGO

to try and promote this across the Cotswold district.

He set up plans for Morton for example and elsewhere and he'd be glad to work with others to try and make this happen

So it this seems like a really positive

A really positive option that we should take a look at

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:26:15

Thank you, and I'm good that Andrea's here she'll be no doubt on me here noted that

And I think it's always good to encourage

local parishes and things, they do an awful lot.

There is a huge amount of people who do a lot of litter picking.

It's obviously better in some areas than others,

but it does make a huge difference,

and I'm really grateful for all those people who take part

in those litter picking exercises.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 1:26:42

So the point is that normally it's not enjoyable because

there's a whole lot of trash to be picked up

and it's a horrible experience.

This is done in such a way that it's a very pleasant experience.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:26:52

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:26:55

I actually, I enjoy, I like getting the biggest bag, you know,

to call me competitive, but that's what I like to,

and quite quite excited about a big thing,

because that really makes my bag look full.

I shouldn't say that.

There we are.

But it is a very valuable site.

So thank you.

I don't think there's, from this, thank you both for the report

and for the detail and for coming back to us on the various items.

But I don't think there's any particular recommendations.

Thank you very much indeed.

Now, no, I think we can go straight on where we thought

we might have a break now, but in fact we're only at

half past five.

So I think as Andrea and everybody's ready, we could do

waste -fleet replacement, please.

13 Waste Fleet Replacement

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:28:06

Everybody seems a little restless and there is a small demand for a break so let's have

a break of ten minutes if everybody is happy to do that.

So, five minutes, five minutes, okay.

Five minutes, right, okay.

Well, five minutes and we'll be back.

Thank you, sorry.

the next item.

13 Waste Fleet Replacement

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:29:22

After the break, our next item was the waste fleet replacement.

Councillor Pellegram is going to introduce this as the

Capital Member for Environmental and Regulatory Services.

It says, I have it supported by Peter Johnson, and Peter...

Oh, right, so, Helen, you're doing...

is going to be Helen Martin, that is, is going to support her in this. And yes, please, far away. Thank you very much.

Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 1:29:58

Thank you, Councillor Blomfeld. This report is very succinct and clear and it gives the impression that these decisions were come to easily. I can assure you they were not.

I've been in the role since May and Peter Johnson,

the new head of waste, has also been in the role for that long.

Throughout that time, we have discussed at great length how

best to address the need to replace our vehicles.

So we've got three competing factors here.

First of all, we've got the cost.

As you see, that's almost $6 million in capital funding,

which is not an insignificant amount of money.

We have our carbon commitments where we're seeking

to significantly reduce our carbon outputs,

and the waste fleet is one

of the council's biggest contributors to CO2.

And we have the problems of service delivery.

And as I've been in this role,

I've seen that service delivery has really been affected

by the quality of our vehicles, the breakdowns,

the unreliability, which has led

to service failures and missed bins.

It's not good enough, and we're trying very hard

to give a really excellent service.

Behind all of this, of course,

we've got local government reorganisation,

which is causing a lot of complexity here.

Because as we try to balance

all of these different objectives,

for instance, reducing our carbon footprint,

the obvious way to do that would be to replace our vehicles,

which currently run on diesel, with electric vehicles.

That, however, is very difficult in the Cotswolds

because it's a long, thin district.

The only depot where we could actually put in the charging infrastructure is at the very southernmost tip of the district.

The vehicles would have difficulty actually getting there and back with current battery life. The battery life is improving.

And I think that in terms of LGR the difficulty is that

there are probably better places to charge the vehicles for the northern part of the district outside of the district.

And once we're in local government reorganisation and we're in a different geographical configuration,

we might be able to find convenient vehicle charging points, but we haven't really got them available to us now.

So this paper

is suggesting that we replace 31 vehicles.

I asked Peter Johnson to look in detail at whether it would be more cost effective to just replace the existing

vehicles and wait until we go into the new local government structure, whatever that

might be, at which point then within a larger area we can make better plans for electric

vehicles and vehicle charging. As this report shows, that option of repairing the existing

vehicles was rejected because it's just, I think they're just too old, too far gone to

actually effectively repair and to still secure

excellent service delivery.

So we've taken the decision that we cannot

feasibly decarbonize our vehicle fleet,

though that might be our aspiration

with the funding that we have.

So we've decided to go for one electric vehicle

in the southern part of the district,

which is flatter and close to the charging point,

which is in South Cerny.

And we will restructure the services so that the Sire Ancestors sort of southern area,

which is also by the way the area where we're going to see the most significant growth from the local plan,

if those housing schemes go forward,

the area where we can test whether EV works. Other districts in the Yubico

area are also looking at EV and we can gather some data on how effective EV is.

However, that means that we have to replace the rest of the vehicles with diesel, which

isn't very good because that's what we're trying to move away from.

And to invest in vehicles now in diesel means that there's a good 10 years until those vehicles

are replaced.

So given the conflicts of the ability to charge, the cost, the need to retain high levels of

service delivery, we've decided that we're going to take a temporary measure, which is

to use hydro -treated vegetable oils, which is basically, as I understand it, mostly recycled

from the food industry. We're going to try to avoid sources like palm oil, which actually

have their own carbon impacts. And in order to use that vehicle, which is called a drop -in

Fuel basically it's a like -for -like replacement with diesel

we will we will store that it will need to store that because it's not something that you can just buy in small quantities and

We propose to do that at the South Cerny Depot

As a temporary measure

It is currently more expensive

Than diesel, but who knows what the future prices are going to be?

And the report suggests that we're going to have to look very carefully at the cost of this

hydrate treated vegetable oil HVO

Visa V the diesel to see what is the best solution for both the environment and for the cost to to our

ratepayers

So I think that's all I want to say

I'm happy to take any questions. It is actually quite a complex issue, but I hope that that summarised it for you. Thank you

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:35:46

Who did this? A forest of hounds going, oh Nick, oh Nick, Nick, we haven't heard from you yet.

Just a little question, we're talking about this oil, are you talking about chip pan oil?

Deep deep fryers I think.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:35:58

I think, yes.

Yes

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:36:12

As I understand it it is from that sort of waste of the chip pan prize etc, but cancer Cunningham

Actually, I'm just cue jumping yeah, I have no idea about about chip pans to be perfectly frank

Councillor David Cunningham - 1:36:24

I come from the North Cotswolds, we don't have chip pans in the North Cotswolds.

We have air fryers in the North.

Actually, my question is a much more general one and it goes back to your opening comments,

Councillor.

This report is incomplete.

One of the biggest factors of this is the money.

And the money isn't discussed in here.

We're just told, don't worry your little heads about it, we'll come up with the numbers later

on.

And I don't think it's fair for overview and scrutiny to make any recommendations to cabinet,

nor for cabinet to make a decision without more detail about where the money's coming

from.

because I don't think that it is catch word of the day,

particularly prudent for this council to be going out

and borrowing tonnes of money at this point.

I absolutely agree with you.

And it is a bit cart before the horse,

Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 1:37:28

chicken before the egg, whatever.

This will be all discussed in detail

in the financial report of February,

but we've also been given an indication.

and I believe it's in this report that the money is available and that borrowing will be avoided.

David Stanley might want to add more detail.

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:37:58

My recommendation was going to be that given that you're not going out tomorrow to buy this new electric vehicle,

Councillor David Cunningham - 1:38:01

not all of them, not all 31 are going to be refurbished and bought tomorrow.

I don't see any real issue in us discussing this or making a recommendation to cabinet

or even cabinet delaying this until we do have more detail on the number.

I understand that Mr Stanley has a level of confidence which isn't as high as he would

like and I appreciate that he's always very cautious about giving any sort of recommendation.

I think it would be prudent for us to wait until we have a better idea of the

numbers before we or cabinet can say that this has probably been scrutinised

and can be passed on. Thank you. Oh well or do you want David Stanley to come in?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:38:49

Oh you would like Andrew? I don't, Councillor. I'll just quickly say that the lead time

Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 1:38:56

for these vehicles is actually very long and I understand there are a lot of other councils

in the queue before us. So there is actually some level of urgency to start putting in

our order now so that we have a place in the queue. As far as how we're going to pay for

it, I'm going to leave that to Mr Stanley.

Thank you, Chair. This is a difficult paper to put in front of this committee to scrutinise

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:39:21

without that certainty as to how we're going to pay for it or how what funding would use.

There's limited choice, capital receipts, earmarked reserves, external funding, revenue

or the B word, borrowing. I'm doing all I can with the numbers in front of me today

To avoid the last of those it does not make financial sense for this council to

fund

The waste fleet replacement programme from external borrowing because you'll be borrowing at

Four and a bit percent closer to five percent on an annuity basis for eight years four point seven three percent. It's

In a falling rate market.

And then on top of that you've got the revenue impact because you have something called MRP,

Minimum Revenue Provision, which is a prudent amount that we need to set aside for the repayment of external debt.

Those numbers are already in the Council's medium -term financial strategy from either 26 -27 or 27 -28 because there is a timing difference.

As members will recall the medium -term financial strategy update report that

was considered here and it by cabinet in October indicated a significant

financial gap that was opening up out over that medium -term financial period.

So part of the equation here is how do we support the service with the need to

get some certainty on can we replace 30 -odd vehicles and the lead time for

that is getting tighter and tighter.

It's anything from 12 to 18 months.

And there's a number of other authorities

that are looking to do very similar things to us.

So the longer we take to make that decision in principle,

the harder it will be to ensure that those services remain

resilient over that period of time.

We saw an ageing fleet, particularly

on the stowage vehicles, the ones that pick up

all the recycling.

As I see them trundling up and down the Fosse Way, I get very nervous when I see the 12 plate come out of its garage to replace one of the 69 plate vehicles.

I am that sad. I do look at the vehicle registrations on a daily basis on my commute in.

So, the best I can give is a very cautious, based on the local government finance, that

settlement, the provisional figures that we had back into December, which I haven't shared

with members because there is some uncertainty as to how good they are.

They are very positive for this council.

That might open up the opportunity to remove the need for prudential borrowing by using

some of that revenue bonus to fund those vehicles.

We have, so I am working very closely with Peter, with Helen, with Michelle and the finance

team to get to a point where we can confidently say, based on a number of factors, we do not

think we will need to borrow for the waste vehicle replacement programme, either for 26,

26, 27, or for 27, 28, or for any other year that we still happen to be in existence.

There are a number of moving parts.

We need to understand what our balances and reserves position will be so we can then do

the forecast of treasury management income.

So if we're going to lose $6 million of our balances and reserves because we're going

to use that to fund the waste fleet replacement, that knocks down what we might get from investment

income.

We are still in a consultation period around the provisional local government finance settlement.

That may be subject to change. We might not know the outcome of that until late January, early February.

So the consultation is due to close around about 15th of January.

And we also need to estimate the amount of retained business rates income we will have from business rates

by the 31st of January to include in the MTFS.

We are highly dependent on Civica, as are other councils, for a patch to the system to be in place to enable that to happen,

because we are in the 26, 27 will be the period of time in which there is a full business reset,

new valuations and there's five multipliers.

That requires quite a significant system change. It's going to be very tight. At this point in time, I cannot give members

that cast iron guarantee that we will not borrow, but what I can give you is the cast iron guarantee that I'm doing

everything I can, working with Mike, working with Patrick, working with other officers, to completely avoid borrowing.

But I could not rule that out. It would be

remiss of me to give you that confidence now, only for in four weeks time to say

that wasn't right, but we are looking at the numbers in a way to remove the borrowing need

because that will help the financial position in future years and it will also give the

clarity of the decision that the service needs to engage with the manufacturers, to engage

with UBICO on getting that fleet replacement programme in train.

Councillor David Cunningham - 1:44:56

So, manager, we meet again on the 3rd of February. Would you have a much better idea as to whether

you could say yea or nay to borrowing by the 3rd of February?

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:45:07

In the fact that by the 3rd of February and the Thursday after that, that I will have

to have prepared in conjunction with the portfolio holder the draught budget for the organisation,

there will be some better numbers.

It will largely depend on whether the business rates numbers are available at that point

as to whether there is enough headroom to allow revenue contribution to capital outlay.

So again, I cannot guarantee that.

I don't think anyone here doubts that we need to do the replacement.

Councillor David Cunningham - 1:45:41

Andrew, I don't think anyone's, we've been talking about this since I was in Shultz.

And I think we all agree that what you're talking about, the compromise around the chip

pan oil is also, I think, a better idea than diesel, has to be.

Getting the small electric van to do the south of district, I think it's a great idea.

I think it makes perfect sense as well.

It's definitely a move in the right direction.

But I don't think that we can, as councillors, especially not on ONS, say that we can recommend

a cabinet to put this to them and move forward to them without some serious caveats around

where the money is coming from.

I think we would just not be doing our jobs as ONS if we didn't raise that as a serious

concern.

Thank you.

I was just following on from that question.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:46:34

I understand the importance is we need to order the vehicles.

Vehicles do not just come like that.

But I don't know what the contract is.

But when you put in the order and say circumstances change,

and we haven't got quite the amount of money

in, say, six months time, what is the penalties

that we would do for not cancelling all orders,

but altering orders?

What is the risk factor?

because you say there's a queue of people wanting these vehicles.

So presumably there might be other councils who would be prepared to be rather thrilled to be moved up the queue.

I'm just wanting to ask what the risk factor is if we subsequently decided we had to cancel 1, 2, 3 or whatever.

Thank you.

So I don't have that information to have.

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 1:47:24

I would be surprised if that's the process that would be followed, because I think what

we would be doing is booking a number of slots in that production run.

So we might be booking slots 45 through to whatever that number is.

That would give us an indication of when those vehicles are likely to be completed and delivered,

and that's usually a 12 -month period.

And during that we'd be working on the specification.

And there'll be a date at which we have to say it's 31 and they're blue and they've got

four wheels or whatever that is.

Once we're into that process, that's what we're going to end up getting.

There will clearly be a payment upfront and a payment upon delivery that will need to

be discussed.

but I think what I would advise members is this to me is the priority call on internal

resources. That what we would look to do is reorganise the revenue and capital programme

funding to ensure that we don't borrow for this particular outcome. If that means some

the difficult conversations in the future capital programme because capital

receipts have gone down further or the revenue budget is under some pressure

next year that's where I would be advising you to make those

recommendations to cabinet about adjusting future spending plans and

prioritising the funding of this programme from internal resources in a way that

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:49:13

removes the need to borrow. Thank you, I mean it is, yeah, it's always difficult

we've all done it, we've all ordered a car or something and then you know, not

always the decisions you want to carry on with it. Anyway, it's being made in wherever it is.

Thank you, now we've got lots of people who want to say and I've got Councillor

Councillor Tony Slater - 1:49:34

later first. Thank you chair. A couple of things on section 4 .1 page 8 there's a

this paragraph is actually a direct drop from the main suppliers website but when

you dig below the headline it's it's not 80 to 90 percent emissions per mile that

the truck emits. It's well to wheel, I call it. So it's the life cycle of a

litre of diesel from digging it out of the ground to driving it along the road

collecting the dustbins. So that's perhaps a little misleading. What's more

important, especially for diesel, is particulates and the particulates are a

lower in chip fat than diesel. So it might be worth bringing that out as a

highlight rather than the amorphous 80 to 90 percent. I think that the amount of

diesel that we would use is minuscule in the in the world of co2 so that might

might not be the headline to go with.

The price of a tank is 60 grand, but there's no mention of the differential of the price

of HVOs versus diesel.

I know you say it goes up and down.

I would suggest the only way it's going is up because the supply of chip fat is probably

fairly static whereas if the demand goes up then the price is only going one way.

So that's that's a risk but again we can't make a decision on that because we

haven't got any cost things around it. 4 .13 references palm oil what practical

steps would we take to ensure that no palm oil goes into the HVO's, that there must be

some sort of audit process that we have to verify that, otherwise it's actually going

to be worse than diesel. That's all I've got to say on the fuel, but on the actual waste

collection itself, we haven't really discussed that in any great deal. I think the proposal

is to keep the curbside sort as it is, which for me is very disappointing because it means

we're going to be stuck with the crappy blue sacks for cardboard for another four, five,

or ten years even.

And they're already not fit for purpose because since they were introduced, oh, whenever it

was, ten years ago, the world has changed and people have a hell of a lot more cardboard

in their waste than was probably ever envisaged.

I know ours is, well, I've got an Amazon habit, I know,

but ours is very often full up, overflowing,

and you look down the road, they're untidy,

they're messy, they flap open, the cardboard gets wet,

which reduces the value of it.

We haven't got the costings around the potential capital

outlay of replacing them with the commingled system. And I'm just wondering

if it might be worth looking at that, especially with the council

reorganisations to align with other councils such as Stroud and others that

use the commingled. Thank you. Thank you, that was a lot of questions. Yes.

Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 1:53:18

That's okay. First of all, you raised a question about particulates and should that be the

thing that we raise in the report. It's a good point, but our corporate objective is

about CO2 emissions, not about particulates. So I will leave it to officers whether they

want to actually put in a reference to particulates because, of course, I think I believe you're

right. On the cost of HBO, excuse me, I've seen a previous

version of this report and it did actually suggest a cap.

We felt that that was too constricting. So what the report

actually says in paragraph 4 .14, it basically acknowledges the

fact that first of all we've got the issue about is it palm oil

or is it chip fat oil?

Yes, you're right, there might be competition for it

and the report actually suggests that as well.

So it says in 4 .14, the council will need

to develop an appropriate mechanism

for monitoring the financial and climate implications

for the move to HVO to ensure that cost

and environmental benefits are considered in the round.

So basically, that means that we're aware of the issue

but we haven't actually come up with a monitoring system

but we know and we will do that.

So I hope that answers that question.

You don't like the existing curbside system and you don't like the green,

the blue bags and there's too much cardboard.

Yep, I agree.

However, that's not what this report is about.

This report is about vehicles.

And as far as how we harmonise services, I'm asking the question all the time because first

of all we don't know who our partners are going to be in the new unitary.

So we don't know what existing systems we're going to be partnering up with.

But also,

that sort of, as the monitoring report showed earlier on, we're actually doing very well on our recycling.

As far as the cardboard, I think when we commission these new vehicles, we'll ask for that cardboard bin to be configured larger

than is in the existing vehicles so that there will be more space for cardboard because you're absolutely right,

There's a lot so we're alive to all of this

As far as collecting it, but I don't think we're going to be looking at blue bags at the moment in this report

Thank you for that it's obviously as I said it's disappointing because we don't

Change the vehicles very often

There will be a bigger bin bay for the cardboard. Hey, I'm not interested in the lorries. I'm interested in my front step. Okay, well

So I would have thought that the strategy would have built in or fed into the requirement for the lorries.

That's why I think it's important to consider it.

I'll file that away.

Please don't file it too deep.

I guess this is covered, I think.

Is Councillor Turner next?

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 1:56:30

Thank you. I was really looking forward to this item.

Councillor Clare Turner - 1:56:34

What is a pet subject of mine?

So I was really excited to scrutinise what is one of the biggest decisions that we have asked to make as a council.

The kind of scale and the importance of the fleet and the job it does is huge.

It's not often I agree with David, but I do feel that I was incredibly disappointed with the report.

I was a little reassured by some of your introduction which did cover some areas of obvious gaps in the report

But I don't it's not just about the finance for me

And I accept that audit will be looking at the financial side of things as well order and governance

but and

I've heard the phrases today. We'll try to avoid using palm oil in HBO

I kind of think we really need to understand it in order to scrutinise this decision properly

I feel like we need a lot more information about those discussions that have been had and

We're not the first local authority to use this approach. So what are other authorities doing in terms of

Discretionizing that supply like how does that work?

Do we have the same capacity to do that and counts us later raise the point that you know?

There is a finite supply of this vegetable oil

So I have grave concerns that we're going into something thinking it will achieve a particular goal

which it won't necessarily give us those environmental returns that we would want without other downsides

to it. So that's the first thing on HVO. On the positive side, I'm delighted to see in

the report that the reliability of the vehicles has been flagged up and that we want to avoid

that service disruption and the high maintenance costs. So that's very positive that we're

putting that consumer experience first. And we've raised the unreliability of the seven

and a half tonne the narrow vehicle before now in scrutiny.

So it's great that the early replacement of that vehicle

has been raised.

I also appreciate that there's issues with the range

and payload when it comes to EV vehicles.

But overall, I'm incredibly disappointed

to see that we're just starting off with one vehicle.

And in the report, the issue is raised around,

it's a proof of concept.

Well the Forest of Dean who have got fairly similar sort of circumstances to us

They've had two vehicles in operation since I think the summer of 24, so there's going to be some information there

Can we not I know it's a different

Supplier I think if I do their waste collection

but could we not be learning from some of these other authorities and using that to inform our decision -making and

So, yes, it's disappointing that we've got to the point of HVO is our solution for the

next seven years plus, once we switch from the diesel vehicles.

There's a kind of focus on the report for like -for -like replacement when vehicles reach

the end of their life.

And that makes perfect sense in terms of understanding the financials, so you've already

know what's required to deliver the job in our district.

And it also, to me, makes perfect sense

in terms of the curbside sort, because I

think that does give you the best

chance of getting high quality recyclers.

And I think in the report it mentioned

that five of the Gloucestershire authorities

do have curbside sort.

So it sort of ties in with that.

So it makes sense in that respect.

But are we missing an opportunity here

to just think about properly, particularly

in the context of LGR, to have a really good think

about how should we be approaching this as a county?

Should we be creating or investing in a transfer station

so that vehicles are going shorter distances and so on?

There was none of this information in the report

to help us understand whether these issues

have been considered and dismissed.

So I feel ill -equipped to say this is a good decision

or not at this stage.

And in the context of you know this part of a scrutiny meeting

I don't it's difficult particularly with a head service not here either to support you

It's difficult to really get the information we need and on the hoof then say well actually this is the recommendation

I would come to you based based on that

that your responses to us and

I'm just having a look at my notes to see if anything else hasn't been covered by my fellow councillors already

I understand the situation that finance is the main driver for not getting more electric

vehicles, but again, we haven't got the information to scrutinise whether every possible opportunity

has been explored to approach that in different ways, given the importance to us as a council

and also the legacy of what we do and how we set these things up.

Although we've only got a short amount of time left as a district council, the decisions

we make will potentially roll out for the future council too.

Certainly they'll be using these trucks for till 2034 even if we change that if we change more than 27

and

Around around the decision -making part as well. There was also

We didn't have any information about the operational assumptions around the operational life of the electrical vehicles versus

the diesel ones and and all of this feeds into being able to make an informed decision and

scrutinise effectively

the process that has led to this point. So I

there's not so many questions in there, more just general concerns, but

yes, I'd love to hear your thoughts, and I wouldn't think it's a bad choice to defer to a later date,

but I understand the importance of the lead -in times, particularly with smaller vehicles. That's even longer than the larger ones.

Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 2:02:34

Thank you, Councillor Turner. You clearly have a very good understanding of this.

I can assure you that all the questions you asked,

I've asked and discussed with officers.

I just started attending the Glosterer Waste

Resource Partnership, I believe that's what it's called.

I'm surprised that there is so little understanding

of how we work across the county.

I've set up a meeting with Beth Rotten to Wednesday

where I'm going to start saying why are we not looking

at this more strategically.

I asked the question, can we have an EV charger

that we use outside of our district?

I was told no, we can't.

Every time I've asked the questions you've asked,

I was told no, we can't do that, we can't do that.

But we will be able to do

that under local government reorganisation.

It's unfortunate that we've been abolished

so that limits our ability to make long -term decisions.

It's unfortunate that the timing for these replacements

is now just a couple of years before we harmonise.

At the end of the day,

if we're gonna keep delivering services,

we have to do something.

So this was proposed.

At the beginning when I took over in May,

you know, we were going to decarbonize the waste fleet,

But as we started being pragmatic looking at the budget,

looking at the range, looking at the charging infrastructure,

we realised that wasn't possible.

Yes, we are trying to learn from the other authorities,

but what we learned from Forest of Dean

doesn't help us have a charging facility

in Morton and the Marsh.

And there might be facilities in Cheltenham or in Stroud,

but we don't know yet.

So that's what I'm starting to ask Beth about.

In the meantime, we have to replace the vehicles.

And I consider this to be the most pragmatic way

of addressing those three issues of service delivery,

carbon creation and cost.

So I very much would like this to go ahead now

so that we could start moving forward.

And I can assure you that the questions that you ask

are being asked elsewhere.

Thanks.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:05:05

Gina, that's all right, don't worry.

Yeah, if I can, I just want to defend this.

Councillor Joe Harris - 2:05:10

I think it's a really good report, actually.

I know we've heard comments that it's not good enough, either on the cost or it doesn't go far enough environmentally.

But I think you've just said it, Andrea.

This is a compromised position recognising the challenging

situation that we are currently in.

You know, to colleagues' points around cost, well, you know,

it's too expensive.

There's not enough detail.

But I read this as, you know, the report is actually built

in cost control.

It's built in cost control through planned life cycles,

through risk assessments, and through future budget reporting.

And, you know, I think we've alluded to the fact David is

quite cautious, and I think that's one of his real strengths.

So, you know, I'm reassured on that front that we are being

prudent when it comes to the finances, and we're not taking

some sort of reckless decision.

And, you know, to other colleagues saying, well, it

doesn't go far enough on the environmental side.

But, you know, find me an electric bin lorry that can go

up and down Cotswold Hills and, you know, has the infrastructure

around it to keep charging it.

The reality is they don't exist yet.

This is the problem.

And while technology is coming on, we are not quite at the

tipping point yet where it is financially sensible, but aside

from the finances, it's sensible in terms of service delivery.

Ultimately, this is about continuity of service.

And the biggest disaster we could possibly do is stick our

eggs all in one basket and then the service falls over and

nobody's having their recycling collected.

That would be the worst world.

We have to be pragmatic, and you have to be pragmatic when you

are in a position like yours, Andrea,

and you are running a council.

And actually, I think this is a really good balance.

Is it war and peace on, you know,

does it have all the information that perhaps we might ideally

like?

No, it doesn't.

But ultimately, we have a burning platform here,

and we need to act.

This is fundamentally about service continuity.

And I think actually you've come up with a good compromise.

I know within probably the cabinet there are voices,

aren't there, saying, oh, perhaps do you go to fire

on earth, there's probably concerns from Patrick,

you know, on the fire.

You know, these discussions, shock,

horror do happen within administrations in cabinets.

So, you know, actually I think, Andrea,

you've brought a really good report.

I'm absolutely comfortable recommending it and actually

endorsing it because ultimately if we want to waste service,

that is resilient and continues to function,

then ultimately we have to do this.

And listen, we've got a small electric vehicle in there.

That gives us the opportunity to scale up the operation if we can.

It's successful.

I think that's good.

Equally, you know, on the use of new technology,

chip fat, whatever we're calling it, again, that's, you know,

it doesn't sound like the silver bullet,

but it is, I'd say it's marginally better already.

So, you know, credit to you, I think.

And the last point I'd make is on a waste transfer station.

I know this is a debate that we've been having for years in this district. You find a community in the Cotswolds that wants a waste transfer station next to them.

So Claire, maybe there's somewhere in Blockley we could station one, but that is a very tricky debate to have.

And trust me, we've been there, haven't we Mike, at the back of the room.

So yeah, so actually I think it's a good report. I'm more than happy to recommend it to Council.

And if we are having a vote, I will be voting to just get it done.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:08:51

I know that Councillor Turner's itching to come in but David Stanley wanted to come in too. So Claire if you can hold fire for a moment.

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 2:08:58

Thank you Chair. Just to give you some other numbers. 508 ,000 litres of fuel. So if you work out what the differential may be that will give you a sense of I suppose my tolerance.

So you wouldn't want a significant 10 pence differential in that price adversely.

So part of what the discussion was with cabinet and with the report also was whether or not

that was built into this report or whether or not there were other factors like the environmental

benefit that was factored in.

But Councillor Harris has kind of taken away some of what I was going to say.

This is about from, it's not about the numbers.

Yes, it is about the numbers, but the numbers have gone up.

so I haven't done a very good job,

has gone up by 200 ,000 over the report period in terms

of what we need to spend.

This is about ensuring we can, as a council,

continue to collect the waste for the foreseeable future,

for the life of this council.

Questions as to how the council does that,

we would still be discussing in two years' time

and in all likelihood some of the vehicles that we're

seeking to replace, including that 12 plate

that gives me a bit of a minor heart attack in the car,

would have broken down and would have had more service failures.

So this to me is about making the capital investment as a priority area

to ensure the service can continue to deliver.

We spend over 8 .8 million pounds a year of revenue budget with UberCo.

That is only going to go up if we don't replace the fleet,

because the fleet will become older, it needs more repair and maintenance. Those vehicles

that become end of life will need to be replaced with higher vehicles that are far more expensive

than buying them over a long period of time. This is about taking that opportunity. It's

not a perfect solution and there has been quite considerable discussion amongst officers

and amongst members of the cabinet as to what those options would be. We have through that

process and it would be of benefit for members to appreciate that there has been quite a

detailed piece of work that Peter Johnson has undertaken going through the stages of

what do we need to do in order to place an order for a vehicle. We don't just rock up

to the local garage and say we'll have 31 of those. We have had to go through the process

of how we're going to collect it because if we went away from kerbside sort to semi -commingled

commingled that requires a change of service that will become really

challenging to deliver in the time frame this council has got given LGR is around

the corner and a new unitary be it a single or a double, Camp will do that

piece of work anyway because Yubico are effectively operating eight different

services for eight different councils. So the numbers are important but there are

other numbers that are coming into that and what I have said earlier on is

making this the priority for financing but giving that steer to the service

that they can start that engagement with suppliers with the procurement process

to get these vehicles delivered as soon as possible and we're probably looking

at no earlier than January 2027.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:12:19

That was wonderful and very clear and thank you. I wonder whether Helen wanted to add

anything at this stage I mean just in the in the talks that you've been having

and the planning around this.

Don't have to feel you have to, but I just felt if you want to

add in, I'm very happy to hear from you.

Thank you.

I think actually Andrea's done an excellent job, and David has

filled in the gaps on the finances and some of the background.

So I don't think there's much more to add other than to just

reiterate the key points that the key issue here is we need a direction

of travel, we need an in -principle decision so that we can start

having more detailed conversations about the procurement, because it

does have at least 12 months lead in time to that.

The curbside sorts, that is a decision that is recommended

on the basis that currently the majority

of the other organisations do that.

It's something that needs to be reviewed when we get to LGR

along with all the other decisions

as Andrea and David have set out.

So I think, you know, this really is a report

that is the best solution to where we find ourselves

financially and with the future of local government.

But if we are going to maintain that service delivery

for our customers, we do really need to make a decision. So I would just endorse everything

that's been said. So thank you, Chair.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:13:31

Thank you for that. Councillor Cunningham and then Councillor Jenkinson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, did you want to jump in, Claire?

Councillor David Cunningham - 2:13:38

Councillor Clare Turner - 2:13:45

I just wanted to come back on that point. I'm not criticising, I'm not saying that I

disagree that this is the best solution for the Council. I'm saying I feel ill -equipped

with the information we've been given to say this quick decision could have been better or could have been worse and so on.

So that's what I'm questioning is, I feel iniquipped to scrutinise it effectively.

And if transfer stations have been explored and so on and we can't interact with neighbours and things,

it would have been helpful to have had an understanding of

the process that has led us to this conclusion.

And that's what I feel is lacking in this, is the understanding of how we got to this point,

which we will be asked to scrutinise. That is our role here, is to scrutinise it.

Councillor David Cunningham - 2:14:28

Well, she said. But just to answer... No, I seeded the floor.

Just to answer Joe's points, if this comes to Council, I'll vote for it.

But you're in overview and scrutiny now, Joe, not in Council.

The purpose of ONS is to do what it says on the tin.

We are not in a position at this point to properly scrutinise this and say to Cabinet

that they should do it.

That's not, that's, that's absolutely fine.

But my point is, if we are going to allow this to go through, that we need to have a

clear recommendation as per the 151, that we request the Cabinet, including their decision,

that this be prioritised in terms of finance over other capital projects going forward

to ensure that we are not borrowing to make this happen. If that's not something the

cabinet can do, then we need to defer it until we have more numbers and we can make a proper

decision.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:15:35

Thank you. Does anybody wish to come to that? I know that Councillor Jackson has got a point

he wants to make.

It's also relevant to that.

Well, Councillor Jenkinson.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:15:48

I'm not in a position to

endorse this recommendation on the basis of what I've heard so far or what I've read.

It didn't help by the way that the paperwork

that came through with the table was so tiny, it was completely illegible.

And to me that was sort of symptomatic of a problem with this whole presentation.

We've heard that it's a very substantial investment that we would be making.

And in keeping with it being a very substantial investment,

I would expect a sufficient level of data analysis about the issues to be able to scrutinise.

And so I'm in the same position as Councillor Turner in saying, and I want to be clear,

I engaged with Councillor Wilkinson before you.

He was concerned about the same issues.

It's been going on a long time and I appreciate that.

And I've no doubt that lots of people have put in serious work on trying to work out what to do.

But what the problem therefore is that it's disappointing to find that at this stage when it does come to the table,

it doesn't actually provide

fundamental answers to fundamental questions including the ones that Councillor Cunningham has just been bringing.

So it's for that reason that I can't do it. I want to just put that together and add another point to it.

Firstly, it is not clearly committed that we would not be

using HVO's except for those HVO's that are recycled from

ChIP -FAT or whatever.

It's really critical that we do not set out on a plan that

It depends on HVO's, which might be sourced directly from farmed land.

I have a whole presentation that I could go through with you, which is prepared here,

but in the circumstances in which we might not be going forward, I'd rather present it to you,

send the information for further use.

The fundamental issue is that it isn't just palm oil,

it's even things like rapeseed oil.

The problem is that the processes by which farmland

is being used to produce HVO's has a negative effect

on climate and biodiversity.

There's a lot of data on this, European studies and elsewhere,

So that it is not recommended that we, if we are interested in

improving climate, that we go down the route of depending on

HVO's, especially as it's acknowledged that there is

a problem.

We cannot guarantee supply of chip fat type oils.

And therefore, inevitably there seems to be a danger of coming

along and saying the price is going up, there's a shortage

of it, why don't we extend and source from elsewhere?

And without taking up everybody's time on the reasons

why in this meeting, I think that it would be very,

very injudicious of us to find ourselves in that position doing

it in order to try and mitigate climate issues.

So what I'm looking at here is that we don't know.

We haven't had a commitment that we won't need to use a wider

range of HVOs.

We don't know whether we will be able to achieve economies of scale by aligning with other parts of the county.

We don't know what kind of... we don't have data about the current efficiency and possible efficiencies of integration.

We don't know what the cost of rationalisation of bases are.

Could we rationalise bases?

And especially, could we already start thinking about

rationalising bases with a view to moving into

a unitary authority?

Why can't we start doing that?

There's no information that says we investigated that,

and for X, Y, and Z reasons we can't do it or we can do it.

It is exactly relevant because, for example,

we could have a debate.

Instead of having one base right in the bottom of the south,

which means that the vehicles cannot travel all the way up

to the north and all the way back again reliably going up and down hills, we could have a more

local base so they do not have to travel so far.

And by the way, if they don't need to travel so far, it doesn't need to cost so much.

We do not know what the situation is at the moment about what is there a cancelation

policy.

If we order all of these, could we cancel if we find that there is a better alternative

downstream when we align?

Have we worked out what is going on with other countries?

can we not start working with other councils already

in working out some kind of alignment?

What kind of discussions have taken place on that

and what is the outcome on that?

We've heard that there has been a difficulty with it

and I accept that, but it doesn't sound

like we're at a serious point.

If it is the case that we can get a guarantee

that we would not use HVs, any other HVOs,

the cabinet could commit to that.

If we can get a commitment from the finance lead,

finance officer, that he absolutely understands

all of the details of the financial situation

and has gone thoroughly into the cost -benefit analyses

which we have not seen and as a result of those

is able to commit to telling us that this will save money

over time as well as meeting service

or at least achieve service benefits

for which it is worth investing a little bit of extra money.

If all of the questions that have data

that has not been supplied here about the analysis could be

committed to by the Cabinet in conjunction

with the relevant officers, then I could support it.

But at the moment, I don't have the ability to be able

to recommend to the Cabinet, yes, accept this.

Sounds like a good idea.

I totally accept the need to change.

Totally accept the need for it.

I thoroughly approve, think people are doing a great job.

I don't want to be negative.

I'd love to be able to approve this.

I'd love to be able to see you come back shortly with a programme

that answers these questions more completely.

Councillor Pelgore.

Thank you for allowing me to respond.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:22:33

Councillor Jenkins, I'm so disappointed

Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 2:22:35

that you don't understand the urgency of this.

You want more basis for EV charging.

I'm afraid they probably have a lead time of 10 years.

And as I already said, I don't know if we have something over

the border that we can use.

But we're not in the position yet where we can

have harmonisation.

I told you that I'm having a meeting with Beth Broughton to

talk about what other facilities are available because Yubico

holds all the data and that data isn't being shared with us.

I told you that the Gloucester Waste Partnership is not really

doing very much to work together but that I'm pushing it forward.

and I believe that other counsellors from other districts,

particularly Stroud, where they do have quite a few

counsellors who have a background in waste management,

we are trying to push for that, but all of this takes time.

It all takes time, and we're all trying to work

with what we've got, but the urgency is

that the vehicles are breaking down,

and we can't fix them because it's not cost effective.

We have to do something. This is the best solution we have with the time and the

money and the expectations available to us. As far as having no HVO from, I'm

going to say from plants, because I think that's what you mean whether we're

talking about palm oil or agriculture, I've already read out that, you know, the

officers intend to put in place measures to track this and I think David

Stanley is also going to ensure that we track the costs

for this because if the HVO becomes financially penalising,

we'll probably have to make a decision later on

down the road that we can't continue with this.

But the HVO where the intention, the report is very clear

that it's not from detrimental sources is a stop gap

until we can actually start working with the other councils

as you suggest and start putting in other vehicle

charging points, which we can't do right now until we've we've harmonised with the other districts. So I

thank you

Councillor Harris for supporting this report because I think it is I think the officers have provided enough information

for what we've got now and I do appreciate that you don't understand maybe the decision -making process that we went through

Which was quite convoluted and you know maybe officers could provide further information on that

Thank you

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:25:08

Thank you. Councillor Dickson just wants to come back and then I've got Councillor Slater please.

Thank you Councillor Pellegrino. I

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:25:16

I understand you're disappointed, and I'm disappointed to be saying what I am.

I'm not saying that people

people haven't worked hard at it and that they're not well

intended and that they don't, and they're not trying to make

the best of a difficult situation.

I'm sure that they are.

I've said there are some things which, if they were available,

would help me to be able to support it at the moment.

But what I've indicated is that there are some gaps,

and I'm not alone in saying that there are.

You've indicated that Yubico won't share the data with you.

No, I said they haven't shared the data.

Okay, well, presumably we've asked them to share the data

and they haven't provided it.

That's not what we're used to in overview and scrutiny in terms

of the provision of a set of data that enates us to be able

to say, okay, they've thought about this.

How many acts, you know, there are this many breakdowns and

it's caused this much of a problem and this is what we're

trying to do about it.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:26:24

We're just... Councillor Mike, Evan Nieder is going to come. I know the name but indicated from the back that he would like to...

Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:26:36

Yeah, all I wanted to say was to obviously, Andrea has answered the detail point, but I think what I've heard from the committee is a level of uncertainty about the report.

And the challenge was always when we were going through this process about how much detail and that we put in this report

because

fundamentally decision is do we replace the vehicles if so with what?

And how much is it going to cost us and how we're going to pay for it?

Which is ultimately what this report is about?

Councillor Slater pointed out, you know, he thinks that curbside

commingled is better than curbside

Personally I don't and when we looked at it as a cabinet we basically included

that the cost of change, the upheaval of change would be far too much disruption

and actually as Councillor Turner pointed out the quality recycler is

better when you have a separated service that we have at the moment. So we made

that call so that's not in this report but it underlies that. So I think you

essentially this is about do we replace the vehicles if so with what and how do

we pay for it and obviously there are challenges and questions I hear what

members have said I think Councillor obviously Councillor Pellegram's answered

those questions you haven't got the officer who's worked on it here in terms

of the detail but essentially that's a decision that we are asking or we are

intending to take on Thursday off the back of the discussion that we've had

here this afternoon. I've listened very carefully but I just wanted to make the

point that the difficulty with this whole thing is seeing the woods through

the trees you know there's so much in it which I think you've demonstrated

there's so much here but actually I just want to boil it back down to I think as

Councillor Harris said you know we need to have lorries that collect stuff from

people's houses and we can't let that service fall over and it will fall over

if we don't replace the vehicles. Thank you for adding that. Thank you very much.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:28:37

Much appreciated. I've got Councillor Slater and then Councillor van please.

Councillor Tony Slater - 2:28:46

Just on the cost of HVOs, I did a very quick search on the what the litre price

is and it ranges from 140 to about two pounds but it says on average it's about

10 to 15 percent more expensive currently than diesel, which based on 508 ,000 litres

would cost us about 71 ,000 pounds a year.

That's in addition to the tank cost of 60 ,000.

Is it possible, that's not a time critical element because you've said it's a drop in

fuel that you can just change at any time.

Is it possible to take that section out relating to HVOs until we've got more accurate

costings and estimates to go with that and by which time you might have been

able to get a more cohesive view across the county as to whether that's more

that's a thing they want to go for. Otherwise we're spending out sixty

£20 ,000 and you said it might be disposable if it doesn't work out in a year or two's time,

which I would be upset as a taxpayer and I couldn't justify that to my residents. So is it possible,

I don't know if I need to propose it, to take that section out relating to HVO's and we can drop that

sorry drop that back in at a later date once we know more accurate details because that's not time

critical in replacing the lorries. Thank you actually I have written down here

Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 2:30:20

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:30:22

precisely that though considering for a recommendation that the HVO but it's

really just buying the tank which is because the rest of it the vehicles will

run whether the tank is not there so I thought that was just a thought I had

I'm not asking for an answer on it you can come back oh you want to come back? I mean we

Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 2:30:43

we can ask the officers to tweak the report to say,

because I think there's quite a lot of work

that needs to be done before the tank can be put in.

As the report says, planning permission might be required,

and we don't know yet.

And I don't think we own the site either,

so I think Yubico owns the site.

So there's a lot of work to be done.

You're effectively impeding to that.

But agreeing, so, I mean,

I wouldn't be averse to saying... I'll give a view as to the Chair of Cabinet. I think the

Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:31:19

importance and the reason HVO is in this report and we've not brought it forward

before because we were, as I think Andrea said, we were hoping when we made this

decision that we, and I share disappointment that Councillor Turner

says, that we would been able to move forward with more electric vehicles

than we have been. And I think in looking at the overall decision, having

the ability to use HVO as a substitute fuel and therefore mitigate carbon impact

and picking up what you said, Tony, about the particulates, I think is a good thing.

And I think the in principle decision to do that is required and also to be

able to essentially do the work around the depot, planning permission, all that

things going to take quite a long time, probably run parallel to the provision

of getting the vehicles which takes about a year. So I don't think personally

I would want to say no we don't want to do that or let's hold off doing that.

Obviously not had any detailed conversation with officers about the

timelines but I think what we want to do when we brought this report forward was

say okay well we can we need to get diesel vehicles we don't really want to

do that but we're going to have to get them so if we are going to have to get

them, then let's see if we can mitigate that impact.

And that's where the HVO comes in.

And the figure that you gave, Tony, of about 70 grand is

probably one that I think that David has been looking at.

He might give you an answer on the figure exactly.

But I think the point is what we don't want to, you know,

what we don't want to do is just go out there and say, you know,

we're just buying a load more diesel vehicles and we're not

really serious about our climate, addressing the climate

challenges and the particulars.

We are.

And I think as a consequence of that, we wanted to look at how

we can mitigate that impact and that's why it's in there.

Thank you for that. And now David Stanley's got something to add on this.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:33:13

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 2:33:19

Just to remind members that the £60 ,000 for a fuel bunker is already in the capital programme.

That was part of a wider discussion about business continuity, so we predated the conversation

about HVO. So currently the way in which UPPCO fuel the vehicles is they use fuel cards which

up until relatively recently gave a reasonable differential price, a discount.

That discount's been eroded and actually it's probably more time consuming for the crews to go to the local garage,

the 417 just outside of Simon Seston, fuel up and then travel up the Fosse Way.

So by having the fuel bunker you get business continuity because it will hold fuel for a number of days,

possibly up to two weeks.

That's the sort of capacity.

The differential price, so in an earlier draught of the

report, I think the figure I came up with out of thin

air was 50 ,000 pounds.

Everything's always 50 ,000 pounds with finance.

It's the sort of limit you get.

Now, there's two numbers that will change.

So at the moment, there might be a higher HVO

price than diesel.

That can reverse.

and that market is quite sensitive and you will be buying in bulk, so there will be a

discount on whatever price we can look up on Google or AI around that.

We will get some better information from other sources of other partners that have been using

HVO.

Certainly the anecdotal information that Yubico have provided around that is there hasn't

been that level of differential that I think some of the scarier numbers that saw a 10

to 20 pence differential in place were giving. But certainly I was mindful that this was

putting in a forever commitment to always pay a higher price potentially for HVA over

diesel. Was that something the council wanted to do as a forever decision or was it a decision

that needed to be reviewed? So this report puts in place the recommendation around having

that framework developed but hasn't set what that financial parameter would be

because it will always be moving and events like happened over the weekend in

another part of the world indicate that fuel is quite a commodity that's worth pursuing.

Well thank you for that, that's very helpful. I think all these

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:35:43

things will be reviewed and always being nothing is certain so thank you very

Councillor Michael Vann - 2:35:55

much like Michael that many thanks we have a statutory obligation to collect

household waste we have to we have it's not only we can find the time and do

something environmentally satisfactory it's does that it's not a particularly

the old act, Environmental Protection Act, 1990.

And however disagreeable one finds it,

to have to put into the future,

not having diesel type powered vehicles,

If they break down, and they already break down, we as a council are in trouble.

And I might even be thinking about seeking indemnity from those councillors who disagree with me.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:37:12

Thank you. I would just want to make a comment on this, not just on the fuels that we're

talking about, but the SAAF, which is Sustainable Aviation Fuel. And I know a bit about it because

of my son works at Mars bars, or Mars, but they also do pedigree chum. And this is where

you'll get this contest between people wanting sustainable fuels and this new

lot of people. So there's a lot of people who want to put it into aeroplanes and the

same thing is going to be happening with the hydrogenated fats or oils. It is

likely, and I'm going to say that these costs are going to go up, that we can't

unless it's grown to be on oil use like this, then the actual recycling of

whether it's chip fat oil and all the other things,

is probably not going to be realistic.

And I dare say not going to be cheaper than diesel.

But I'm only making that.

But they certainly got a lot of lobbying for that.

And there's a pull between pedigree charm

uses a lot of stuff which would otherwise

go in sustainable aviation fields.

And who wants it more for their pet dogs

or whether it's for their aeroplanes?

Very difficult. It's a contest.

That was the... In here, much... That was a bit of a deviation on page 129.

There's a mention of having to restrict the amount of cardboard recycling per household due to capacity restraints.

I mean, I just wonder how this is going to be handled in the days which has already been mentioned of the endless Amazon deliveries,

which go to Councillor Slater's household almost every day.

It is a real problem, and I don't know how you were looking

to see how the trucks or whatever were going to be

to accommodate it.

I just want to, and also, again, a huge thing on the radio today,

mustn't go in wet, and a lot of people have been wetting it

deliberately to make it fit into their cup,

but there are things better, like blue bags.

Thank you.

Just very quickly.

Councillor Andrea Pellegram - 2:39:19

yes the the HBO will probably cost a bit more but we're choosing to do that

because of our carbon reduction commitment so it's not easy you have to

make a decision are we going to be more polluting or are we going to pay more

and this is this is the halfway house that we've devised as far as the

cardboard when these new vehicles are commissioned they will have a bigger

section for cardboard.

That I'm sure is a great relief and great to see. Councillor Harris.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:39:51

Councillor Joe Harris - 2:39:56

We're going to make a couple of points. I think on that thing around cardboard the reason we didn't give people larger bags in the

last administration, I'll have you know reduce the size of the bag, is because the lorries kept getting full.

So if we start giving people bigger bags the lorries will get full even with

bigger

bigger compartments.

So ultimately, we need to look at this, yes, it's a convenience

issue for our residents, but actually it's a personal

responsibility issue, I would argue, as well.

You know, yeah, I fill the bag up quite quickly.

That's why I spend, you know, 15 minutes every Sunday evening

with a big pile of cardboard and cut it up.

And it does all fit.

No, you don't say cut it up, you cut it up and you can push

it down and compact it.

Because who knew cardboard actually compacts

if you stand on it.

So, you know, that's by the by.

What I would say, however, is I think what we've highlighted

this evening, and perhaps this is an area of training for

the committee, is a naivety around the decision -making

process.

We've had a report come to us this evening, and what I can

tell, what I take away from the debate is we're basically using

this issue, a specific part of the waste service, to try

and redesign the whole service.

That's not what we're being asked to do.

We're being asked to comment on this report, try and make a,

try and reassure ourselves that the Council is making a safe decision, which

I think, you know, based on the questioning we are. And also could it be,

could we try and improve it? And actually, you know, well I appreciate,

well I appreciate Council of State's latest efforts on Google and, you know,

getting the calculator out. Well actually we have a team of experts who do

that work to reassure us that we're doing that. So what I haven't heard, what

I haven't heard is any recommendations that actually make the decision better

That's what I'd say. What I have heard however is a misunderstanding of how the

decision -making works. If we are talking about service redesign that has been

alluded to this evening then ultimately we need to be planning that years in

advance. We should have been doing that in 2018 when we were looking at

recommission the most recent batch of vehicles. You were the administration so

it's a good question isn't it Tony? So what I would say is that if we do want a

future, where we're talking about our electric vehicles.

We've got charging points in the north Cotswolds,

middle Cotswolds, south Cotswolds, wherever.

That conversation needs to start now.

And as Andrea has alluded to, that's probably going to come

to fruition in 10 years' time.

Now, obviously, we've got LGR, so that's largely with that

of our hands.

But it's a good example of where, whether it's this issue

or another issue, you have to start planning years in advance.

And coming to a scrutiny committee, bemoaning the fact

that we don't have enough information, which I personally think we do, and you know, talking

around the other issues, you know, I just don't think it's helpful.

So you know, I get back to my earlier comments.

I think this is a good report.

I commend you and your team.

It's a compromised position.

Of course it is.

But it gets us to what we need to do, and that's service continuity.

Madam Chair, sorry.

I don't, show me the money.

Councillor David Cunningham - 2:42:59

Just show me the money.

We hear about every scrutiny on anything, but we spend any money on anything.

And that's the reason we have scrutiny, is to ask where the money's coming from.

We get the same concerns.

And I don't think anyone who's not concerned about where the money is coming from should sit on overview and scrutiny, to be honest.

And that's it.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:43:30

Yes, Councillor Harris, I'm always delighted to be educated by you and you're very experienced

and I appreciate that, so thank you. We are not a political group, we're a non -political

group and as such we have a responsibility which we take very seriously to try and make

sure that the Council does the best thing that it can.

The position I laid out at the beginning when I first replied

is that I'm not in a position to support it.

That is not the same as saying that it must be a bad decision

or it is the wrong decision.

I'm not in a position to say it's a wrong decision either.

What I'm in a position to say is there's an absence of things

that I would need if I am to be asked to support it.

Now, if the Cabinet wants to go ahead without the support of scrutiny or certain members,

they can.

That's their right.

But I'm not in a position to scrutinise it.

We didn't get the information from UBICO for whatever reason.

So what's the calci... what's... so for example, can you confirm that

if we find in the timeline that there is a

capability to cancel

undelivered vehicles that we can. Is that going to be built into the contract?

Do we

We have a commitment not to use HVO's that are sourced directly

from farming because that would not meet our climate objectives

and there's a great deal of data to back that up,

which I'm happy to go through.

But since we're short of data in other areas as well,

I'm not going to do it now.

I think that we've got a report that says we are meeting our

objectives more than meeting our objectives of avoiding missed

bins.

We're better than missed on that.

Under the circumstance in which we're meeting our service

targets, where's the data that says, I sort of could take on

trust.

Everybody's been talking about this problem for years, so I

take on trust that maybe these vehicles need changing.

But something that says, this is how much it's actually costing,

this is what the maintenance costs, this is why it's a good

deal that we should go out and buy it, and this is the

delivery results that we'd be able to achieve it, would make

it a slam dunk for being able to say, yes, I support it.

And since it's the biggest item that we heard, I'm just saying,

okay, before I go, yeah, let's go and spend six million in a

situation like this where we don't have the,

we'd have to borrow a chunk of the money,

why can't we just make sure that we've got a well laid out piece

of data that shows this is definitively why we should do it,

these are your critical questions,

this is the answer to them, and you can see that this is

the right result.

Wouldn't Cabinet like that too, given that we've already heard

there are differences of opinion inside Cabinet?

Thank you.

I'm sure you want to come back.

Can I just answer that last one?

That wasn't what was said.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:47:01

Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:47:03

There are, I think what the former leader said is there are sometimes in cabinet, and

he's not in it now, where people have different opinions and debate and discuss things and

come to a collective decision.

So I just want to put, counteract that on the record that there has been a good discussion

about this, and this is obviously we will have a, as we have a view going forward in

terms of make a cabinet decision.

But, you know, we're not arguing about this in cabinet.

I don't want people to get that impression from what you just said.

If I can just pick up on the other points that you made, Angus.

I think this was a challenge, I said, when I spoke just a few minutes ago about how much

detail is put in here, because we've had loads of discussions about this and have come to,

you know, and, you know, come to a view about that this is the right thing to do.

And we've asked for a report to come forward to do that.

And clearly, for some of you, it's not enough, and for others, it is.

What we can do in the Contapi to take away is to see what more

information we can publish to give reassurance to members that

that due diligence has happened that we haven't, you know,

because there is quite a lot of information clearly that's

sitting behind what's written in his report.

A couple of particular points then.

I think to the point you made, Angus, about missed bins, I

would just answer the point is it's service failures that this

is causing.

It's not missed bins.

It's service failures when there's a breakdown or there's,

you know, the lorry's full and whatever because it can't take

the capacity.

So that's essentially what we're trying to accept.

And we said that the reporting you're currently getting isn't

showing that.

But, yeah, we do have that information.

So we will know what the service failures are.

And there is the evidence, therefore, behind the fact.

And we did, we have probed quite hard on do we really need

to do this.

I don't want people to think.

We just think, oh, yeah, spend six million quid.

Absolutely not. You know, we won't say, okay, what is the

evidence to show that we need to do this?

And if we do need to do it, you know, then we've been through

what sort of vehicles that we need.

We went through the, you know, do we go to curb commingle

versus curbside?

But all of that discussion has happened in advance of getting

to here.

I think maybe what we can do is ask for a bit more information

about HVOs.

But what I would, I don't know the answer to it, but I'm happy

to ask a question from your perspective, the perspective

raised about the use of HVO's generated from farming is,

if the alternative is HVO's from farming or diesel,

which is the better for the climate and for the future

of our planet?

Because ultimately what we're saying is, we want to try

to move away from using detail.

We want to go to HVO's.

I accept your point, Angus, that HVO's that are basically

crop crops that are grown for that purpose are you know not in your view

and in others view what we should be doing but I suppose what I want to just

understand is okay so if we were in a position where our officers are getting

the choice of okay we either get this one or we put diesel back in the lorries

and just to reassure members sure you've read that what this does mean is that we

can still put diesel back in the lorries so if we absolutely need to we can and

we've got that flexibility to be able to do that if we go ahead on this basis.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:50:16

Time is moving on. So if anyone wants to have a question out,

Councillor Bridges hasn't given a question earlier, could they be quick and

could the answers be quick? So Councillor Bridges do you have something you wanted to add?

One thing that I've been listening to as a naive person listening to this,

Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:50:35

We've got the local government reorganisation coming up.

That is going to be looking for economies of scale.

The one thing that we do know for certain is that we will be working with Cheltenham

because whichever reorganisation happens, we're working closely with them.

In terms of asking for economies of scale in two years' time,

I'd like to know what are they doing,

because if we're going to be merging then we don't really want to be spending

six million quid if we're doing something that they don't want and

something else that comes out of that is well if we're not doing that why don't

we just rent more lorries because they're not I've heard that mentioned.

If I can take back to an LGR question I think yes we know well we know in any of

Councillor Mike Evemy - 2:51:28

three scenarios that we will be the future unitary council.

Presuming unitary councils go ahead, which is always that other caveat, isn't it, that

the government doesn't change their mind, or somehow something doesn't happen, that

we will be in the same authority as Tewkesbury and Cheltenham as they currently exist.

So yet there are obviously discussions that happen, but fundamentally there's a huge amount

work that councils will need to do in

to create new unitary authorities. And

essentially we've got a waste system

that will not last until the new unitary

authorities formed. That's basically

because the vehicles won't last that

long. So we've got to make a decision of

either we replace our vehicles or we

have a decaying service that continue

that underperforms and we hand over

basically a mess to the new council and

And that's what we and I, leading this administration,

are not prepared to do.

So, yes, we can have discussions, and yes,

we have looked at that.

But I think as Andrea in the answer to earlier questions

said, you know, that's all very well, but it's been very,

very hard within UBICO, and I've been to go into UBICO meetings

now for a couple of years, to get things agreed

across boundaries is incredibly difficult.

Very, very hard.

Joe, who's going to them before?

So, the idea that we could agree to, you know,

And even the timelines of doing things differently, on the

timeline to basically make sure that our service doesn't fall

over before we end, it's not going to happen.

So we have to take control of this and make this, I think we

need to make a decision to have new vehicles to ensure that we

hand over, when we stop existing, if we do on 31st of

March, 2028, a service which is working for our residents and

that meets the national demands now.

Because not only we voluntarily collect food at the moment and we voluntarily collect stuff. That's all going to be mandated as

Legislation and we've got to bring in clear film as well from next year. So all of that's got to happen

We can't put this off essentially next as the answer is we've got to make a decision

We've got to have lorries that collect stuff and if we do that, yeah

I know it's six million pounds is six million pounds that we will have to spend but you know ultimately our successor authority

potentially would be having to spend that or they'd be paying a lot more for the rented vehicles that you know David is our financial advisor

At the back there tells us. We don't want to be having to rent these vehicles

It's going to be really expensive and not not a good value for money

Thank you, and in fact. I was just going to say the cancer takes the point. How have we managed the

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:54:08

Service up to now actually we've had to rent in vehicles then which is what's been replacing our broken down vehicles

isn't it? So we have had to do that and that's what sort of kept it going. I understand,

at least that's what I understand. Councillor Cunningham, did you before you, were you...

Thank you Madam Chair. We have to make recommendations to cabinet. I don't think

Councillor David Cunningham - 2:54:32

anyone disagrees with the first one. I think we're all agreed to approve the replacement of vehicles

in line with the updated capital fleet. But you know they've got to go, we've got to have new

ones come in fine. Approve steps towards decarbonisation of waste services through

the purchase of one electric vehicle and a shift to alternative fuels perhaps,

maybe that's how we word this, so that we can put more work into agreeing what HVO

is, which is chip fail or whatever it is from the south. Include the re -profiled

expenditure, yes, that will be considered by cabinet in February with a commitment

by cabinet to avoid any prudential borrowing for this particular capital expenditure. I

would be happy to support that.

Councillor Turner.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:55:21

Councillor Clare Turner - 2:55:25

I was just going to say on the last point, I think the debate about the finance should

happen at the budget point. I don't think we need to add that wording at this stage

because that's what the budget meeting is for, to have those debates.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:55:49

Right, before we sort of lose, and time is essential, what was and I see any

recommendations we want to make to cabinet, we've had a suggestion for

Councillor Cunningham. Has anybody else got any other suggestions?

Councillor Cunningham, read the second one again, please.

Councillor David Cunningham - 2:56:10

Approved steps towards decarbonisation, which we all want to do, purchase of voluntary vehicle,

and a shift to using alternative fuels, which would allow us then going forward to look

at HVO or others without pinning us down to just one.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:56:27

I'm pretty sure that there's not another alternative fuel you can put in a diesel.

Oh, is it? I keep staying with diesel. Sorry.

Actually, you can. So, yes. Councillor Jenkinson.

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:56:44

I stand corrected if there are alternative fuels, but the problem I'm trying to avoid is

I want to block us from taking certain alternative fuels and what you're doing is opening this up to a whole range of alternative fuels.

So it's the contrary of what I'm trying to achieve.

The

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:57:17

Two to counsellors who happy to take the recommendations as the one two and three and things have I got any other

anybody else

Because coming on this coming with his

variation on them and I think Council Jenkinson do you want to make you want to

to number two you would like to say that the alternative fuel should be carbon

neutral but um should not be impacting on the environment in other ways I'm not

quite sure how you would want to be not from agricultural sources at the moment

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 2:57:54

And all I'm saying is there's a range of reasons why I'm

concerned about my ability to say, yeah, I can see that this

is a great solution.

I can see that a solution is needed.

No question.

But can I say that this is?

So that was my general position.

Without going into detail on the specific point, because you're

thinking about HVO, then I'm simply saying you're proposing

one particular sort, but you're not saying it would only be used

in that way and I'm absolutely recommending you not to open the door to a wider range

of HVO's for reasons that I was challenged earlier on, would I prefer diesel? You have

no idea what the climate impact would be of ploughing up a whole lot of good soil and

starting to grow rapeseed. It would be monumental. Yes, I would prefer diesel.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:58:52

Right, um, Councillor Turner. Just on that point, the wording currently is to approve

Councillor Clare Turner - 2:58:58

steps towards the decarbonisation of waste services. So I think that wording does cover

that issue because moving to crop grown would not be decarbonising. So I think that the

current wording is probably sufficient on that.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 2:59:19

Or should we say, and a possible shift to using?

That sounds very pedantic.

Consider a shift.

Oh, consider a shift.

I don't know.

Look, I think we've got no, I don't, we have got,

time is running out.

Have we got an alternative proposal?

Because otherwise we'll take it to the vote as it stands.

we've got a proposer and a seconder on the current.

Does anybody else, and of course you can vote in any way you

choose on this, so it's not, you know, so unless I have

a substantive.

Andrew?

Could I?

Yes.

Okay, so in considering recommendations, you don't need

Andrew Brown, Officer - 2:59:59

to be tied to what's in the cabinet report, so those are

recommendations to cabinet.

So unless you're suggesting altering particular wording, yeah, yeah you can

recommend whatever you like really but I'm not hearing anything that has a

board consensus. I think the financing point about not using external borrowing

has been answered and will be picked up in the capital sort of strategy and

then there was a point about not using HVO is derived from crops but then that

would contradict the cabinet decision to decarbonise.

So it's whether the committee are happy that those points are

adequately covered.

But I'm not hearing a consensus for a particular form of words

as a recommendation.

I heard earlier on was a question that said,

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 3:00:56

given that there were things that we weren't clear about,

Why does the decision have to be made right now?

Why not in a month or a few weeks?

Given that there are fundamental questions and it would appear

that you're committing yourself to something, if you say,

well, this is a decision to go ahead and lay down a marker

where we establish ourselves, we put ourselves in the queue,

and we can review it and we can adjust it, and we find that we

can work with Cheltenham or something else, then we can adjust it. It's a completely different

situation, of course. But if you're saying is you want to make a commitment on Thursday

to spending all of this money in this particular way, I'm just saying maybe you know a lot

more about it, so you can make that commitment, but that's not the same as what was being

put in front of me.

So can I just, do we have to make any recommendations?

Councillor David Cunningham - 3:01:56

Let's make no recommendations because we cannot, and we'll vote it down.

Can I, if it's helpful, can I say something?

Councillor Mike Evemy - 3:02:04

Because I know this is your deliberation point, but obviously Andrea and I and David are all

here.

We've all been listening to this discussion.

We will take away the, and Helen, sorry, yeah, on screen, what's been discussed this evening

and think about that in light of what we might decide on Thursday.

So, you know, the points that Angus made about growing crops, you know, and the

points you made there, the point about how we pay for it, totally got that, but

the more general broad point is that I think you generally, you know, understand

why we want to do this. So, I think we can take that away without you having to

tell us what you think because we've heard it and if you can't then you don't

have to necessarily come to an agreement on it because ultimately it's our

decision and you're there to scrutinise us and question us which I think you've

been doing very thoroughly.

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 3:02:54

That is the understatement. But I will be coming to cabinet on Thursday, so therefore

I can represent everybody's views. But I am happy to take forward the proposal that

we accept them, which is put up by Joe Harris, seconded by Councillor Van Michael Van, and

then take that to a vote. So could everybody vote on that, please?

Wait a minute. There's three choices.

Supporting the recommendations as set out. Yes, that was your absolutely. Okay.

Two for.

Well, against.

One against.

Two against.

I think we're going to break the rules. Can we break the rules? Just do the work plan,

We're past the three R's.

No, past the three R's, can't break the rules.

There's no recommendation.

The proposal to support the cabinet recommendations wasn't...

But we appreciate that it's been heard.

We heard your comment.

We heard, but thank you everybody.

Thank you.

Well, that was the most...

Please provide any feedback/comments relating to the live webcast here. Any feedback submitted will be received to the Democratic Services team.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Cotswold District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Monday 5 January 2026, 4:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Overview and Scrutiny CommitteeMonday, 5th January 2026 at 4:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:00:07

1 Apologies

2 Substitute Members

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:01:44

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:01:53

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:01:59

Councillor Tony Slater - 0:02:06

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:02:10

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:02:18

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:02:36

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:03:45

4 Minutes

5 Matters Arising from Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:05:10

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:05:29

6 Chair's Announcements

7 Public Questions

9 Report back on recommendations

10 Updates from Gloucestershire County Council Scrutiny Committees

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:08:12

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:08:16

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:08:25

11 Service Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 2

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:09:16

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:10:12

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:10:36

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:10:42

Officer - 0:12:20

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:13:09

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:15:02

Officer - 0:17:23

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:17:52

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:18:59

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:20:43

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:21:10

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:23:20

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:25:33

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:25:43

David Stanley, Deputy CEO - 0:25:49

Councillor Angus Jenkinson - 0:26:35

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:26:40

Councillor Tony Slater - 0:26:45

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:28:11

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:28:52

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:30:03

Councillor Clare Turner - 0:30:13

Officer - 0:31:57

Councillor Clare Turner - 0:32:06

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:32:36

Councillor Clare Turner - 0:33:36

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:33:49

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:33:51

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:36:40

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:39:34

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:39:54

Councillor David Cunningham - 0:39:57

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:40:38

Councillor David Cunningham - 0:42:21

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:43:00

Councillor David Cunningham - 0:43:44

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:43:55

Councillor David Cunningham - 0:44:04

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:44:07

Councillor Mike Evemy - 0:45:23

Andrew Brown, Officer - 0:46:44

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:46:45

Councillor Gina Blomefield - 0:47:41

Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Monday, 5th January 2026 at 4:00pm